The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 09-17-2013 Exhibit A, Item 22 Karen B. Guerin From: Adam Guernsey [aguernsey @hthjlalN.comj Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 8:47 AM To: Gilbert Wong Subject: FW: City Council Amicus Brief Attachments: Letter to Cupertino Mayor City Council 9-16-13 (00353916).pdf Dear Honorable Council Member Wong, I received an email last night that I may have attempted to email you at the incorrect email address. Attached to this email, please find a letter from Mark D. Harrison which requires the City Council's immediate attention. Regards, Adam Guernsey From: Adam Guernsey Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 10:11 PM To: 'orrinmahoney @comcast.net' Cc: 'gilbertwong @gmail.com'; 'cupertinomark @gmail.com'; 'rodsinks @gmail.com'; 'barry4cupertino @gmail.com'; 'carolk @cupertino.org' Subject: City Council Amicus Brief Dear Honorable Mayor Mahoney and Honorable City Council Members, Attached to this email please find a letter from Mark D. Harrison which requires the Council's immediate attention. Best Regards, ADAM K.GUERNSEY,ASSOCIATE HARRISON TEMBLADOR HUNGERFORD JOHNSON MINING LAND USE NATURAL RESOURCES 9809TH STREET.SUITE 1400 SACRAMENTO CA95814 MAIN 919 382.4677 •DIRECT 216 228.4221 •FAX-916.382 4380 AGUERNSEY(a)HTHKAW.COM • WWW.HTHJLAW.COM CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail transmission,and any documents files or previous e-mail messages attached tort may co:�tam confident.al information tnat is lega y p v,legerr It yct,ae nc� the intended recipient,or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient you are hereby no.if:ed that any oisclosue.copying,distribution or use of any of the information c Iained.n of aaached io the transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error.please�mmeciately notify us by reply e ma=> by forwarding ^use--nail back to th r r;era Up telephone at 916.228.4221 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or sarong in any manner As required by U S Treasury Regulations we advise you that any tax ady ce contained.n this communication(including any attachments)is not intended to be useo and cannot be used for the purpose of avad:ng per a!ies under the Internal Revenue Code 1 HARRISON 980 9TH STREET TEMBLADOR MINING SUITE 1400 LAND USE SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 H U N G E R FO R D NATURAL RESOURCES TEL 916.382.4377 FAX 916.382.4380 JOHNSON y'V%`.,V HTi iJ LA" r:(;F.., September 16, 2013 Honorable Mayor Orrin Mahoney City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 94015-3202 Re: City Council Amicus Brief Dear Honorable Mayor Mahoney and Honorable City Council Members, We are attorneys representing Lehigh Southwest Cement Company and Hanson Permanente Cement, Inc. (together"Lehigh"). As part of our representation, we have represented Lehigh in the lawsuit filed by Bay Area for Clean Environment("BACE") seeking to overturn the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors' ("Board") determination that Lehigh had a vested right to mine certain portions of the Pennanente Quarry("Quarry"). We recently have been made aware of communications by City Council member Chang in which he seeks to solicit support for BACE's appeal of an adverse Superior Court decision dismissing BACE's legal claims. We attach one such email to this letter. We wish to apprise the City Council that City Council member Barry Chang's solicitations contain numerous factual misstatements and omissions. We draw your attention to 10 specific items: First, Mr. Chang's email says that BACE's lawsuit was filed against the Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant. This is false. The lawsuit concerns the scope of Lehigh's vested quarrying rights. It does not directly concern Lehigh's cement plant, which is a separately permitted use. Second, Mr. Chang has been attempting to garner support from local municipalities for BACE's appeal without disclosing his position as 13ACE founder and officer, or the alleged impact of the vested rights determination on the financial interests of BACE's members. Third, Mr. Chang's statement of the rule governing nonconforming uses is in legal error as respects to vested mining rights. The property rights associated with vested mining uses allow necessary geographical expansion. Fourth, the County did not give Lehigh a larger scope of vested rights than Lehigh initially requested, as claimed. Fifth, BACE's lawsuit has nothing to do with any alleged environmental violation at the Quarry. As previously mentioned, BACE's lawsuit relates to the Board's decision regarding the scope of Lehigh's vested mining rights at the Quarry. The Quarry has been operating since 1903. Sixth, Bay Area Air Quality Management District rules were not litigated as part of the lawsuit. Seventh, Mr. Chang's allegations concerning the proximity of the cement plant to population centers has no bearing on the vesting issue being litigated. Eighth, as respect to the protection of the public health, Mr. Chang fails to note that the Quarry produces over half of the cement used in the Bay Area every day. Having a local source of cement is critical to limiting greenhouse emissions. Importing these materials from outside of the area would result in greater overall levels of emissions. Ninth,Mr. Chang omits the fact that BACE's legal claims have already been reviewed and dismissed as groundless by the Santa Clara Superior Court. We provide a copy of the Court's Judgment here for your review. Tenth and finally,Mr. Chang fails to disclose that the Santa Clara Superior Court ordered BACE to pay to Lehigh more than$15,000 in costs, occasioned by its unsuccessful legal challenge. To date, BACE has not paid any of these costs. This letter is important to provide the City Council with a clear record. If you have any questions, or would like clarification with respect to any portion of this letter,please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, HARRISON, TEMBLADOR, HUNGERFORD &JOHNSON LLP By:_ lui—c-—1�I Mark D. Harrison cc: Carol A. Korade, Esq. Enclosures ---------- Forwarded message---------- From: Barry Chang<councilbarrv(i.�,nnail.com> Date: Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 9:02 PM Subject: Please file an amicus brief to support Bay Area for Clean Environment's BACE's) lawsuit against Lehigh Cement Planr and... To: Evan Low<low.evan( ),Ymail.com>, Evan Low<g tlo,.vIO2(tz:;aol.coni>, "Low, Evan" <Evan.Low @,iasm.ca.gov>, evanl&it oy fcampbell.com Hi Evan, Please ask your City to file an amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit against Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant (Lehigh) and Santa Clara County. Two days ago, Los Altos City Council unanimously approved to join Town of Los Altos Hills and Midpeninsula Regional Space District (MROSD) to file an amicus brief to support Bay Area for Clean Environment's (BACE's) lawsuit on September 10, 2013. Within the doctrine of nonconforming use, rules allowing nonconforming use should be narrowly construed because nonconforming use is highly disfavored. The issue in BACE's appeal is that Santa Clara County has outrageously distorted the doctrine of nonconforming use. The County Supervisors overruled its own staffs recommendation and gave much more than what Lehigh had originally requested. Given the fact that Lehigh is the largest polluter of mercury, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides in the Peninsula and South Bay, compounded with Lehigh's long history of violating the Federal Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Labor laws and State Mining laws, it is our duty to stop these violations and to protect our residents' health and safety. It has been proven that we can accomplish more to protect public health and the economic engine here in Silicon Valley. More than a year ago, City of Los Altos joined Town of Los Altos Hills and City of Cupertino. We sent a letter to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and asked for more protective rules for cleaner air from the cement industry. With our efforts together, BAAQMD did issue stricter rules for Regulation 9, Rule 13 which went into effect on September 9, 2013. This provides a cleaner air for our residents two years ahead of EPA's new rules. Working together, we can protect our residents' health. Lehigh is very unique, for it is the only cement plant in operation in the United States which is so close to large populous metropolitan area. And it is the only cement plant that next to Silicon Valley, the high tech power engine for our region, our state and our nation. As you know that high tech industry is very competitive. It relies heavily on innovation - which depends on the brain power of highly-educated people. Lehigh's pollution and violation of the laws needs to be reined in to protect the health and brain power of these people. Since Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) will draft the amicus brief, your staff does not need to spend a lot of time to prepare for it. You can set a limit for the cost not to exceed $5,000. When there ere more cities joining MROSD, Town of Los Altos Hills and City of Los Altos, the cost can be further reduced. With a relatively small amount of money and minimum amount of work from City staff, you can show your constituents that you are protecting their health and the economic engine in Silicon Valley. Please file an amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit. Together, we can bring Lehigh into compliance with the laws and protect our residents' health. Attached are Amicus Brief Information Sheet and Notice of Violations (NOVs)to Lehigh from EPA, and other regulatory agencies. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or my attorney, Mr. Stuart Flashman, at 510-652-5373 (0), 51 iO4-0154 (Cel). Or email him at stu(a7stuf lash.com. Thank you very much for your help. Sincerely, Barry Chang A Cupertino City Council Member 408-688-6398 [The entire original message is not included.] SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA @Q)PI) 17 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA PLAINTIFF(S)/PETITIONER(S): ' L No Toxic Air,Inc. MAR 2 13 DEFENDANT(S)/ RESPONDENT(S): pq Santa Clara County Santa Clara County Board Of Supervisors Lehigh Southwest Cement Company ;(AT DAVIDSON Hanson Permanente Cement,Inc. NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND i CERTIFICATE OF MAILING CASE NO. 1-11-CV-201900 By order of the court and pursuant to CCP§ 664.5,notice is hereby given that the judgment in the above-numbered and entitled action was entered on MARCH 25,2013,the judgment was filed and that the same is now of record and on file in said action. Dated: MARCH 25.2013 y $ .,tea SANTA Y CLERK, B;y THY O.DAVIDSON [PAGE 1 OF 2 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF MAILING CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING: I certify that I am not a party to this action and that a true copy of this document was mailed first class postage prepaid in a sealed envelope addressed as shown below and the document was mailed at San Jose, California on MARCH 25,2013. DAVID H.YAMASAKI,CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 4Q 0 o a a B ® KATHY O.DAVIDSON c'l IFosK�* Law Office Of Stuart M.Flashman Office Of The County Counsel—Santa Clara County Stuart M.Flashman Esq. Lori E.Pegg,Acting County Counsel 5626 Ocean View Drive Orry P.Korb,Assistant County Counsel Oakland,CA 94618-1533 Lizanne Reynolds,Deputy County Counsel c/o 70 W.Hedding Street,East Wing,9th Floor San Jose,CA 95110-1770 Harrison,Temblador,Hungerford&Johnson,LLP Mark D.Harrison Esq. Sean K.Hungerford Esq. 980 Ninth Street,Suite#1400 Sacramento, CA 95814 [PAGE 2 OF 2 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I LORI E.PEGG,Acting County Couns6.1(SBN 129073) ORRY P.KORB,Assistant County Counsel(SBN 114399) 2 LIZANNE REYNOLDS,Deputy County Counsel(SBN 168435) L E OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL 3 70 West Hedding,East Wing,9th Floor Mom V y San Jose,Califomia 95110-1770 AR 2 2013 kynr±�_fdflft\�99_590� Facsimile: (408)292-7240 cart a ow��i 4I�dL�S 5 dCAC couVy° O 24ft c+U„ Attorneys,for County of Santa Clara, Ay 6 County of Santa Clara.Board of Supervisors,Respo dents 7 MARK D.HARRISON(SBN 142958) KATHY DAVIDS N SEAN K.HUNGERFORD(SBN 200268) 8 HARRISON,TEMBLADOR,HUNGEITORD &JOHNSON LLP 9 980 9th Street, Suite 1400 Sacramento,CA 95814 10 Telephone:(916)382-4377 Facsimile: (916)382-4380 11 Attorneys for Lehigh Southwest Cement,Inc.,-and -_ __A2- onPermanente Cement;-Inc.;,Real_Partiesin•Interest ------ - - - 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 14 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 15 16 NO TOXIC AIR,INC.,a California nonprofit CASE NO.. 11 I CV201900 17 corporation; Petitioner and Plaintiff, P� JUDGMENT ON ORDER 18 DENYING PETITION FOR 19 V. PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE 20 SANTA CLARA COUNTY,a Division of the Judge Diane Ritchie 21 State of California,a California corporation; Department 10 SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOARD OF 22 SUPERVISORS;and DOES 1-20 inclusive, Action Filed: May 27,2011 23 Respondents and Defendants, Hearing Date:February 6-7,2013 24 LEHIGH SOUTHWEST CEMENT COMPANY,a California corporation; 25 HANSON PERMANENTE CEMENT,INC., an Arizona corporation;and DOES 21-40 26 inclusive, 27 Real Parties in Interest. 28 [PROPOSED]JUDGMENT ON ORDIR DENYING PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE I This Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate came for hearing before the Honorable 2 Diane Ritchie,Judge of the Superior Court,the County of Santa Clara,on February 6-7,2013 in 3 Department 10. luall M�+lachman of ths�t.a ffices of Sjjiart Flac man aWWe 5 Toxic Air,Inc. Elizabeth G. Pianca,Deputy County Counsel,appeared for Respondent County 6 of Santa Clara and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. Mark Harrison and Sean 7 Hungerford appeared for Real Parties in Interest,Lehigh Southwest Cement Company and 8 Hanson Permanente Cement,Inc. g The Court having considered the parties'pleadings,the Administrative Record in this 10 matter,the arguments of counsel,all of the files and records presented herein,and good cause 11 �a/lppeanng,issued an Order Denying Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate on March 15, 13 MOW,THEREFORE,IT IS ORDERED,ADJUDGED AND DECREED that No Toxic 14 Air,Inc.'s Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate is denied,Respondents and Real Parties have 15 their costs,and Judgment is entered in accordance with the attached Order Denying Petition for 16 Peremptory Writ of Mandate. 17 18 DATED: 19 110N.DIANE RITCHIE Judge,Superior Court 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I [PROPOSED]JUDGEMENT ON ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE i LORI E.PEGG Actin County ounsel SBN 12 0 3 '�L ORRY P.KORB,Assistant County Counsel(SBN 114,99) 2 LIZANNE REYNOLDS,Deputy County Counsel(SBN 16843 , E D OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL 3 70 West Hedding;East Wing,9th Floor AR 15 2013 San Jose,California 95110-1770 Facsimile: (408)292-7240 KJ Yit?H',YAt�,SAitl 5 ' *X"CA of sa ftQW% Attorneys for County of Santa Clara, 6 County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors,Resp dents KATHY DA -SON 7 MAR.KD.HARRISON(SBN 142958) SEAN K. HUNGERFORD (SBN 200268) t 8 HARRISON,TENIBLADOR,HUNGERFORD &JOHNSON LLP 9 980 9th Street,Suite 1400 Sacramento,CA 95814 10 Telephone:(916)382-4377 Facsimile: (916)382-4380 }1 Attorneys for Lehigh Southwest Cement, Inc.,and ente-Cnent;Tric,`Real aiti s to Iiitezes� 13 _ SUPERIOR.COURT OF CALIFORNIA 14 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 15 16 NO TOIGC AIR,INC.,a California nonprofit CASE NO. l l ICV201900 17 corporation; Petitioner and Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING 18 PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT 19 V. OFMANDATE 20 SANTA CLARA COUNTY,a Div sionof the Judge Diane Ritchie 21 State of California,a California corporation; Department: 10 SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOARD OF 22 SUPERVISORS;and DOES 1-20 inclusive, Action Filed: May 27,2011 23 Respondents and Defendants, Hearing Date:February 6-7,2013 24 LEHIGH SOUTHWEST CEMENT COMPANY,a California corporation; 25 HANSONPERMANENTE CEMENT,NC., an Arizona corporation; and DOES 21-40 26 inclusive, 27 Real Parties in Interest. 28 [PROPOSED]ORDER DENYING PETTTION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE I This Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate came for hearing before the Honorable 2 Diane Ritchie,Judge of the Superior Court,the County of Santa Clara,on February 6-7,2013 in 3 Department 10. .._._..____.._._.._.,_4.. ,�,.S�art-M:filashman•af-the-L-awOffices-of•StuarkiF}ashrrtatrappeared'for P`etiti6nei;No-- .__.____ 5 Toxic Air, Inc. Elizabeth G. Pianca,Deputy County Counsel, appeared for Respondent County 6 of Santa Clara and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. Mark Harrison and Sean 7 Hungerford appeared for Real Parties in Interest,Lehigh Southwest Cement Company and 8 Hanson Pernianente Cement, Inc. !' 9 The Court having considered the parties' pleadings, the Administrative Record in this 10 matter,the arguments of counsel,all of the files and records presented herein,and good cause 11 appearing,finds as follows: Bkek 13 1. This case presents a Petition for a Peremptory Writ of Mandate under Code of 14 Civil Procedure section 1094.6. The Petition brought by No Toxic Air.,Inc.challenges a March 15 1, 2011 Resolution by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. The Resolution found that 16 Real Parties in Interest hold vested rights to engage in surface mining operations within specified 17 portions of the Porrmanente Quarry,a 3,510-acre quarry operation in unincorporated Santa Clara 18 County. The quarry is a major source of cement-grade limestone and construction aggregates in 19 Santa Clara County,the San Francisco Bay Area,and Northern California. 20 2. The Administrative Record{"Record"or"Ay!')holds voluminous detail 21 regarding the quarry's history. In brief,the Record reveals that mining began in 1903. In 1939,a 22 Henry J.Kaiser company bought the quarry property and surrounding land,which then totaled 23 1,300 acres. In the same year,Kaiser built a cement plant next to the quarry to process limestone 24 into Portland cement. Kaiser concurrently took steps to increase quarry output,to open new 25 mining areas on the property,and acquire adjacent parcels. By January 2 8,1948—the first date 26 that a use permit was needed to conduct quarry operations,according the Board's interpretation 27 of its zoning ordinances—the site was the world's largest limestonie and cement manufacturing 28 facility of its type. By this time,a full range of quarry operations were present,including mineral i (PROPOSED]ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE I extraction,storage and disposal of overburden(i.e.,unmarketable soil and rock),the operation of 2 conveyor systems and haul trucks,material processing,and administrative facilities. Kaiser also 3 had acquired additional parcels contiguous to the active mining operation,and developed plans to 4 •-continue-expanding quarryand•cementl)roductionto satisfy the MWs of the pdst-ivar'economy. 5 The Record sh ows that after 1948,the quarry and cement plant continued to expand in size and 6 output to meet market demands for these materials. 7 3. For most of the Permanente Quarry's history,the County acknowledged the 8 quarry as a legal nonconfonning use,and thus allowed mining to continue without a conditional 9 use permit,although the County had not made a formal determination of the geographic scope of 10 the quarry's vested rights. In 2010,the County decided that a formal determination was needed, 11 The impetus was an application by the quarry owner to amend the quarry's reclamation plan,and _ ----12 the decisiou in Calve U ntyZYTu-bffX20'0"6) 111:)-Ca1. pp. -i. e Calvert decision 13 held that a quarry's neighbors were entitled to notice and a hearing before a county could make a 14 vested rigits determination. In light of Calvert,the County decided that a formal determination 15 of the Permanente Quarry's vested rights was a predicate to approving an amended reclamation 16 plan. 17 4. On February 8,2011,the Board of Supervisors held a noticed public hearing to 18 determine the scope of the quarry's vested rights.(AR 1:33-34.)The Board of Supervisors heard • 19 public comments and considered a large volume of information received from staff,the quarry's 20 owner,the public,and other interested parties. At the end of the hearing,the Board concluded 21 that vested rights existed for 13 of the 11)parcels that comprise the quarry property,and made 22 certain key determinations: 23 a. January 28, 1948 represents the first date that a conditional use permit 24 could have been required in order to conduct surface mining operations at the Permanente Quarry 25 under the County's historical zoning mlinanoes. (AR 1:132-133.) 26 b. Permanente Road.was not a`public street''within the meaning of the 27 County's original zoning ordinance,adopted on September 4, 1937,because the road was closed 28 2 [PROPOSED]ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE I to public traffic at least two years prior in 1935,and because surface mining operations began on 2 the quarry property before 1937. (AR 1:132, 133.) 3 C. Vested rights to conduct surface mining operations exist for parcels 1,2,3, - .4- .5s.6;.7,8,.9;-1.1; 14;15,16 and I?;as mapped in Exlnbit."45".ofthe°P]anniiig,Depwrtriierit's'staff 5 report. (AR 1:132.) The Board found that vested rights do not exist for the remaining six parcels, 6 numbered 4, 10,12, 13, 18 and 19. (Ibid.) 7 5. On Much 1,2011,the Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution with formal 8 written findings,together with the legal and factual basis for each. (AR 1:13I-136,) 9 ISSUES RAISED BY PETITIONER 10 6. Petitioner asserts that only four of the 13 parcels found vested(Nos.3,6,7 and 9) 11 actually merit an affirmative vested rights determination. Petitioner claims that the determination , - €vested rightsr-the rer�xaggarcelss�;2;5;8;1�;ice;7T6—az�d`I"7)is no support 13 by the Record or law. Petitioner's main contentions are addressed below, 14 a. Petitioner first contends that the Court's standard of review is the 15 "independent judgment"test because this case involves a claim.of vested rights. The Court finds 16 that the"substantial evidence"test instead is the correct standard governing the Courts review of 17 the Board of Supervisor's decision. (Code Civ.Proc., § 1094.5,subds.(b),(c).) The substantial 18 evidence test is commonly applied to judicial review of land-use decisions. (See Clark v. City of 19 Hermosa Beach(1996)48 Cal.App.4th 1152,1169;,tlrnel Development Co. v. City of Costa 20 Mesa(1980)28 Cal.3d 511,522.) The independent judgment test applies in land-use matters 21 only when the case involves a deprivation of a fundamental vested right. (See, Sierra Club v. 22 California Coastal Zone Conservation Comm. (1976) 58 Ca1.App.3d 149.) Petitioner has not 23 alleged,nor has Petitioner demonstrated the deprivation of,any fundamental vested right as a 24 consequence of the Resolution. 25 b. Next,Petitioner contends that the Board of Supervisors erred in finding 26 that Permaneate Road was not a"public street'under the County's zoning ordinance as it existed 27 in 1937. Petitioner contends that Permanente Road qualified as a"public street,"and as such that 28 the quarry was subject to a 1937 use permit requirement for:"jc)ommercial excavating of natural 3 [PROPOSED]ORDER DF1fMG PETMON FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE I materials within a distance of one thousand(1000)feet from any public street" (AR 1:211-212.) 2 The Court's review of the Record,however,indicates that the finding that Pennanente Road was 3 not a"public street"is based on substantial evdence. (AR 1:133,212.)The Board relied on 4 . ...Board-of-Supervisor'-smeeting-minntes from`1935wbich'indicated'thafPennafien(eRoad�vasliy 5 then already closed to the public. (AR 1:133,4:1471, 1473.) The Record also reveals no uses of 6 Pennanente Road other than quarry activities in 1937,or at any time thereafter. Thus,the Board 7 reasonably concluded that Permanente Road was not a public street because it did not provide the 8 "principal means of access to abutting property"under the 1937 ordinance. (ARIA 33,211.) 9 The substantial evidence supporting the findings on this point include the 1935 minutes,a 1939 10 cement plant use permit appli cation,1939 aerial images,a 1942 survey map,and a total absence 11 of facts suggesting that Permanente Road was devoted to any use other than quarrying activities -- -- 12- .sinee prior-tor 193°7-.-(AR-3:1135,-4:1448,L-1471;-1473,1512.)"FiEdly-,W rd ire— don 8M7656 -- 13 that the quarry was in operation well before 1937,and thus predated the 1937 zoning ordinance. 14 (AR 1:133.) The Court may not reweigh.the Record to reach a different conclusion. (See,Taylor 15 Bus Sendee, Inc. v. San Diego Bd.of Education(1987)195 Cal_App.3d 1331, 1340;Paoli v. 16 California Coastal Commission(1986) 178 Cal.App 3d 544,551;JKHEnterprises,Inc.v.Dept 17 of Industrial Relations(2006) 142 Cal.AppAth 1046, 1062.) 18 C. Next,Petitioner asserts that the Board of Supervisors was wrong in 19 concluding that vested rights exist for parcels that were not actively under excavation by January 20 28, 1948. Petitioner argues that actual excavation is the only evidence capable of supporting 2I vested rights under the"diminishing asset"doctrine.The Court,having reviewed the decision in 22 Hansen Brothers Enterprises v. County of Nevada(1996) 12 CalAth 533,and the other cases 23 cited by the parties, concludes that proof of actual excavation in each parcel is not required to 24 support vested rights. Vested rights requires evidence of"objective manifestations of intent"to 25 include a parcel or tract in the mining property and devote such land to mining uses. (Hansen, 12 26 CalAth at,542-543.) Such evidence=y include,for example,mineral surveys and exploration, 27 the acquisition of property for mining purposes,mining access roads,other ancillary mining 28 activities,and"the nature of the initial nonconforming use,in the light of the character and 4 [PROPOSED]ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF'MANDATE I adaptability to such use of the entire parcel..."(Hansen, 12 CalAth at 567[citations omitted];see 2 also,Respondents and Real Parties Opposition Brief,pp. 18-21.) Applying the law here,the 3 Court finds that substantial evidence supports the finding that vested rights exist for parcels 1,2, 4. 3,5;6;-7,1,9, 11,, 143 1-5, 16'and'17."EacII-f-A cel was,prid"r to January 28,`1948,incorporated 5 into the mining property by a large and existing mining operation with well-known expansion 6 plans. (See,e.g.,AR 1:136,2:460,3:1127,3045,4:1536-15'39.) Each parcel was,before January 7 28,1948, either actively used in some manner to support the mining operation—including quarry 8 access roads(AR 3:1096, 1096),stockpiling(AR 3:909-921,922-923),mineral study and 9 exploration(AR 3:1092,5:1905-1928,6:2115-2177),and administrative facilities(AR 3:924)— 10 or was contiguous to the active mining operation and in an area generally known to hold 11 limestone(AR 3:1092,5:190571928,6:2115-2177). The Record is replete with images l2' den srisira[ing fihe'coiifuivat progre§`sive giowtli`af the ittitfif�igZS�er�fi6 prior to d affei 13 January 28, 1948;illustrative photographs were presented to the Board and this Court. (See,e.g., 14 AA 8:3120-3150.) The Record thus contains substantial evidence supporting the Board's 15 findings that objective manifestations of intent existed for property.owned before January 28, 16 I948. 17 d. Next,Petitioner contends that the Board of Supervisors erred in 18 concluding that certain pre-1948 roads were used in service of the mining operation. Petitioner 19 suggests that the use of the roads was speculative,or that such roads cannot support a finding of 20 vested rights because the roads may also have been used to support other industrial activities on 21 the property. Again,the Record contains substantial evidence that supports the Board's findings. 22 An analysis by the County Geologist stated that roads in parcels 11, 14 and 15 were used prior to 23 1948 for mineral exploration and quarry traffic. (AR 1:177-178, 182, 191-193.) The Record also 24 contains an expert declaration that roads in the East Materials Storage Area were used for mining 25 purposes before and after 1948. (AR 3:909-921.) These reports constitute substantial evidence 26 supporting the findings as to the nature of the use made of access roads. 27 e. Petitioner next contends that the Board of Supervisors was incorrect in 28 finding that vested rights exist for parcels 16 and 17. Petitioner argues that any vested rights that 5 [PROPOSED]ORDER DENIgNG PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY NVRIT OF MANDATE I may initially have existed for this area(also known as the East Materials Storage Area)were lost 2 through certain ownership transfers. On this point,the Board expressly found that the ownership 3 transfer"did not constitute an abandonriew of surface mining use or otherwise affect the vested 4 mining`rights._Such rights ruh with the1drid."(AR 1:134.)Tlielegal proposition relied on by the 5 Board is correct. "The use of the land,not its ownership,at the time the use becomes 6 nonconforming determines the right to continue the use." (Hansen,at 540,fh. I.) Additionally, 7 the Board relied upon evidence that certain mining activities,including stockpiling and the use of 8 access roads and administrative facilities,commenced in these parcels prior to January 28, 1948 9 and continued after 1948 irrespective of changes in ownership. (See,e.g.,AR 1:134,3:909-921, 10 922-923,924.) Substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that vested rights were not I 1 extinguished by changes of ownership. tli`at the finairigsai�ed to meet the minimum 13 1 standards for administrative findings,in that they failed to adequately identify the evidence relied 14 upon to support the decision,or establis:b a logical connection between the findings and the facts 15 in the Record. The Court finds that Petitioner has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that 16 the Board's written findings are inadequate. Petitioner's cited cases do not factually resemble the 17 findings adopted here. In particular,,Farr v. County of Nevada(2010) 187 Cal.AppAth 669,a tax 18 case,is inapposite. The Court is satisfied from its own review that the written findings provide a 19 logical pathway between the specific findings and evidence in the Record. (See,Topanga Assn. 20 for a Scenic Community v. County ofLos Angeles(1974) 11 Ca1.3d 506,515.) Indeed,the mere 21 fact that the parties were able to present oral arguments at trial on whether the evidence cited in 22 the Resolution was"substantial"indicates that the written findings were understandable and 23 clear.Thus,the Court rejects Petitioner's argument on this point. 24 Accordingly,IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 A. No Toxic Air,Iric.'s Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate is denied. 26 B. Respondents and Real Parties shall prepare a written judgment consistent with this 27 Order. 28 C. Respondents and Real Parties have their costs. 6 [PROPOSED]ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE I IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 4 DATED. H N.DIANE RITCHIE 5 Judge,Superior Court 6 7 8 9 10 1I 13 14 ]5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 [PROPOSED]ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE L1 Re: No Toxic Air, Inc. v. Santa Clara County et at Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 111 CV201900 0 _ 2 MAR 152013 3 PROOF OF SERVICE �L YliiVtA' j� l CM ark, CM ark cw. 4 1,Anna Brown, declare: OE-Pvr, Y'D 'SC} 5 1 am a citizen of the United States,employed in th ounty of SacraTnent California. My business address is 980 9L2 Street,Suite 1400,Sacramento,California 5814. 1 am 6 over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. y I am familiar with the practice of Harrison,Temblador,Hungerford&Johnson LLP for l g collection and processing of correspondence,said practice being that in the ordinary course of business,correspondence is sealed, given the appropriate postage and placed in a designated mail 9 collection area. Each day's mail is collected and deposited in the United States Postal Service. 10 On February 21,2013,1 served the attached: I 11 -{l'"POSER4-ORDER DENMG7 PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF 12 _—MANDATE MANDATE 13 (BY U.S.MAIL.)I placed such sealed envelope,with postage thereon fully prepaid for first- class mail,for collection and mailing at Harrison,Temblador,Hungerford&Johnson LLP, 14 , Sacramento,California,following ordinary business practices as addressed as follows, 15 and/or 16 ] (BY PERSONAL SERVICE)I caused each such envelope to be delivered by band to the addressees at the addresses listed below;and/or 17 [ ] (VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS)I caused each such envelope to be delivered via Federal 18 Express overnight service to the addressees at the addresses listed below;and/or I 19 [ ] (VIA I-ACSIlvfILE)I caused each such document to be sent by facsimile machine number 20 (916)3 82-43 80 to the following persons or their representative at the addresses and the facsimile numbers listed below;and/or 21 [X] (VIA E-MAIL)I caused each such document to be sent by electronic mail to the addressees 22 at the email addresses listed below. 23 See attached Mailing List. 24 I declare that i am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose 25 direction the service was made. Executed on Feb , ,2013,at Sacramento,California 26 27 Anna Brown 28 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 Re: No Toxic Air, Inc. v. Santa Clara County et al Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. I I 1 CV201900 2 MAILING LIST 3 4 Miguel MArquez,County Counsel Attorneys for Santa Clara County and Santa 5 Orry P.Korb,Assistant County Counsel Clara County Board of Supervisors, Lizanne Reynolds,Deputy County Counsel Respondents/Defendants 6 Office of the County Counsel 7 70 West Hedding,East Wing,9`h Floor San Jose,CA 95110-1770 8 Telephone: (408)299-5900 Facsimile: (408)292-7240 9 orry.korb @cco.sccgov.org , 10 Stuart M.Flashman Attorney for No Toxic Air,Inc., 5626 Ocean View Drive Petitioner/Plaintiff I1 Oakland, CA 94618-1533 i 12 �T- ephone/Fax�.X510) E-mail: stu@stuflash.com 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 PROOF OF SERVICE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFCRXIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 191 N. First Street San Jose, CA 95113-1090 L E D MAR 152413 D VtD FI.`lhrl TO: FILE COPY ` Gfara �vN THY AViDSON \ RE: No Toxic Air Inc. A California Nonprofit Corp ration vs Santa Clara County Case Nbr: 1-11-CV-201900 PROOF OF SERVICE ORDER // ISSUED RE: PE'T'ITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE --was-delAvered--to-the-parties-1isted--be low°in-,the-=above=entitled--case:-as-set-- forth in the sworn declaration below. Parties/Attorneys of Record: CC: Lizanne Reynolds , County Counsel - Santa Clara 70 West Hedding Str. , East Wing, 9th Floor, San Jose, CA 95110-1770 Orry P. Korb , County Counsel - Santa Clara 70 West Hedding Str. , East Wing, 9th Floor, San Jose, CA 95110-1770 Stuart Milton Flashman 5626 Ocean View Dr, Oakland; CA. 94618-1533 Mark D Harrison , Harrison Tembladcr Et Al Ahl_N-�) }tJ •H•uN� 980 9th Street, Suite 1400, Sacramento, CA 95814-4413 if you, a party represented by you, or a vitness to be called an bebalf of that party need an accommodation under the American with Disabilities Act, please contact the court Administrator's office at {408)862-2100, or use the Court's TDD line, (4os)W-1690 or the Voice/TDD California Relay service, (600))35 4923. DECLARATION of sERVICE BY MALL: I declare that I served this notice by enclosing a true copy in a sealed envelop addressed to each person whose came is shown above, and by depositing the envelope with postage fully prepaid, i^ 1g united sta s Mail at San Jose, CA on 03/15/13. Div,11D H. YAH.ABAKr, Chief Executive Officer/Clerk by Kathy ,ideon, Depu t 11Y DAVIDSON SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 191 N. First Street San Jose, CA 95113-1090 (ENDO%ED) F L E MAR 15 2013 DAVID H.YAWASm TO: Mark D Harrison/lk&r4 K. P 0 M111-S M.M a Harrison Temblador Et Al 980 9th Street Suite 1400 Sacramento, CA 95814-4413 KATHY DAVIDSON RE: No Toxic Air Inc. A California Nonprofit Corporation vs Santa Clara County Case Nbr: 1-11-CV-201900 PROOF OF SERVICE ORDER ISSUED RE: PETITION FOR PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE was delivered to the parties listed below in the above entitled case as set forth in the sworn declaration below. Parties/Attorneys of Record: CC: Lizanne Reynolds , County Counsel Santa Clara 70 West Hedding Str. , East Wing, 9th Floor, San Jose, CA 95110-1770 Orry P. Korb , County Counsel - Santa Clara 70 West Hedding Str. , East Wing, 9th Floor, San Jose, CA 95110-1770 Stuart Milton Flashman 5626 Ocean View Dr, Oakland, CA 94618-1533 If you, a party represented by you, or a witness to be called an behalf of that party need an accommodation under the American with Disabilities Act, please contact the Court Administrator's Office at (408)882-2700, or use the Court's TDD line, (408)E$2-2690 or the voice/Tm California Relay service, (800)735-2922. DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY Mato: I declare that I served this notice by enclosing a true copy in a sealed envelope, addressed to each person whose name in shown above, and by depositing the envelope with postage fully prepaid, in the United States Nail at San Zose, CA on 03115/13. DAVID R. YAKhSXXI, Chief Executive officer/clerk by Kathy Davidson, Deputy KATHY DAVIDSON 1 Re: No Toxic Air,Inc. Y. Santa Clara County et al Santa Clara County Superior Court rase No. 111 CV201900 2 3 PROOF OF SERVICE 4 I,Anna Brown,declare: 5 I am a citizen of the United States,employed in the City and County of Sacramento, 6 California. My business address is 980 9"Street, Suite 1400,Sacramento,California 95814. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. 7 I am familiar with the practice of Harrison,Temblador,Hungerford&Johnson LLP for g collection and processing of correspondence,said practice being that in the ordinary course of business,correspondence is sealed,given the appropriate postage and placed in a designated mail 9 collection area. Each day's mail is collected and deposited in the United States Postal Service. 10 On March 25,2013,I served the attached: 1 I [PROPOS`EDJ JUDGMENT ON ORDER DENYIN PETITION FOR PEREMPTORYNRIT:OFMANDAT F,---__._-__-....._...___- 13 ( (BY U.S. MAIL)I placed such sealed envelope,with postage thereon fully prepaid for first- class mail,for collection and mailing at Harrison,Temblador,Hungerford&Johnson LLP, 14 Sacramento,California,following ordinary business practices as addressed as follows, and/or 15 16 [ J (BY PERSONAL SERVICE)I caused each such envelope to be delivered by hand to the addressees at the addresses listed below;and/or 17 [ J (VIA FEDERAL EMPRESS)I caused each such envelope to be delivered via Federal 18 Express overnight service to the addressees at the addresses listed below;and/or 19 [ ] (VIA FACSDME)I caused each such document to be sent by facsimile machine number 20 (916)382-4380 to the following persons or their representative at the addresses and the facsimile numbers listed below;and/or 21 [XJ (VIA E-MAIL)I caused each such document to be sent by electronic mail to the addressees 22 at the'email addresses listed below. ' 23 See attached Mailing List. 24 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose 25 direction the service was made. Executed on March 25 2013,at Sacramento, California. 26 27 Anna Brown 28 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 1 Re: No Toxic Air, Inc. v. Santa Clara County et at Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 111 CV20I 900 2 3 MAILING LIST 4 Miguel MArquez, County Counsel Attorneys for Santa Clara County and Santa 5 Orry P.Korb,Assistant County Counsel Clara County Board of Supervisors, Lizanne Reynolds,Deputy County Counsel Respondents/Defendants 6 Office of the County Counsel 7 70 West Redding,East Wing, 9 h Floor San Jose,CA 95110-1770 g Telephone: (408)299-5900 Facsimile: (408)292-7240 9 orry.korb@cco.sccgov.org 10 Stuart M.Flan Attorney for No Toxic Air,Inc., 11 5626 Ocean View Drive Petitioner/Plaintiff Oakland,CA 94618-1533 Tele hone/Fax:_510 652-53-.73--.— -- E-mail: stu @stuflash.com 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 PROOF OF SERVICE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 191 N. First Street San Jose, CA 95113-1090 1�w L E D MAR 2 5 2013 t AM .YAMAGAKl TO: FILE COPY nar�ac4u`my Af on Dcavrr HY DAVI ON RE: No Toxic Air Inc. A California No:aprofit Corporation vs Santa Clara County Case Nbr: 1-11-CV-201900 PROOF OF SERVICE JUDGMENT ISSUED/ON ORDER DENYING PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE was delivered to the parties listed below in the above entitled case as set forth in the sworn declaration below. Parties/Attorneys of Record: CC: Lizanne Reynolds , County Counsel Santa Clara 70 West Hedding Str. , East Wing, 9th Floor, San Jose, CA 95110-1770 Orry P. Korb , County Counsel - Santa Clara 70 West Hedding Str. , East Wind, 9th Floor, San Jose, CA 95110-1770 Stuart Milton Flashman 5626 Ocean View Dr, Oakland, Ci3 94618-1533 Mark D Harrison , Harrison Temblador Et Al .A b S EA N 980 9th Street, Suite 1400, Sacramento, CA 95814-4413 if you, a party represented by you, or a witness to be called on behalf of that party need an accommodation under the American with Disabilities Act, please contact the Court Administrator's office at (408)882-2700, or use the court's TDD line, (408)882-2690 or the voice/TDD California Relay Service, (800)735-2922. DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL: I declare that I served this notice by enclosing a true copy in a sealed envelope, addressed to each person whose name is shown above, and by depositing the envelope with postage fully prepaid, in the iced States Mail at San Jose, CA on 03/25/13. DAVID H. YAvasAn, chief Executive officer/Clerk by ,.y KATHY DAVI ON Karen B. Guerin From: Dave Cherne [dcherne @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 5:11 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Support for Amicus brief Dear Council Member, I am writing to you to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement's vested rights. Los Altos City Council unanimously approved to join Town of Los Altos Hills and Midpeninsula Regional Space District (MROSD) to file an amicus brief to support Bay Area for Clean Environment's (BACE's) lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant (Lehigh) on September 10, 2013. Within the doctrine of nonconforming use, rules allowing nonconforming use should be narrowly construed because nonconforming use is highly disfavored. The issue in BACE's appeal is that Santa Clara County has outrageously distorted the doctrine of nonconforming use. The County Supervisors overruled its own staff s recommendation and gave much more than what Lehigh had originally requested. Given the fact that Lehigh is the largest polluter of mercury, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides in the Peninsula and South Bay, compounded with Lehigh's long history of violating the Federal Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Labor laws and State Mining laws, it is our duty to stop these violations and to protect our residents' health and safety. It has been proven that we can accomplish more to protect public health and the economic engine here in Silicon Valley. More than a year ago, City of Los Altos joined Town of Los Altos Hills and City of Cupertino. We sent a letter to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and asked for more protective rules for cleaner air from the cement industry. With our efforts together, BAAQMD did issue stricter rules for Regulation 9, Rule 13 which went into effect on September 9, 2013. This provides a cleaner air for our residents two years ahead of EPA's new rules. Working together, we can protect our residents' health. Lehigh is very unique, for it is the only cement plant in op,:ration in the United States which is so close to large populous metropolitan area. And it is the only cement plant that next to Silicon Valley, the high tech power engine for our region, our state and our nation. As you know that high tech industry is very competitive. It relies heavily on innovation - which depends on the brain power of highly-educated people. Lehigh's pollution and violation of the laws needs to be reined in to protect the health and brain power of these people. Since Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) will draft the amicus brief, your staff does not need to spend a lot of time to prepare for it. You can set a limit for the cost not to exceed $5,000. When there are more cities joining MROSD, Town of Los Altos Hills and City of Los Altos, the cost can be further reduced. With a relatively small amount of money and minimum amount of work from City staff, you can show your constituents that you are protecting their health and the economic engine in Silicon Valley. Please file an amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit. Together, we can bring Lehigh into compliance with the laws and protect our residents' health. Sincerely, Dave Cherne 10908 Sycamore Drive 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Shing-Shwang Yao [shing_shwang__yao @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 5:24 ISM To: Orrin Mahoney; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro Subject: Amicus to support Bay Area for Clean Environment(BACE) Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Councilmernbers Chang, Santoro, and Sinks, I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. I view the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry as having ongoing problems. This company has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the 9/5/13 Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." hope you will join with the Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, Cupertino Resident: Shing-Shwang Yao 21441 Elm Court Cupertino i Paz Karen B. Guerin From: Susan M Ha [suemha1 @yahoo.corri] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 5:31 ISM To: jennieshabel @juno.com Cc: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks Subject: Re: Need to file a Lehigh amicus brief I also agree 100 percent opinions of Jack and Jenny Shabel, and Nadine Grant from their emails. Susan John Ha 10487 Heney Creek P1. Cupertino, Ca 95014 Sent from my iPads On Sep 16, 2013, at 4:32 AM, "jennieshabel(aluno.com" <iennieshabelpiuno.com> wrote: > I also agree with this email. I and I assume all the people of Cupertino, would expect our representatives on the Cupertino City council to represent their constituents and file an amicus brief in our behalf. If not, I believe we need to elect people who can properly represent our interests and health of their constituents. > Please, we all need to raise our voices and get what we expect from the Cupertino City Council. > Thank You, > Jack & Jennie Shabel > 22622 Oakcrest Ct. > Cupertino, Ca. 95014 > ---------- Original Message ---------- > From: Nadine Grant <nadine @daveandnadine.com> > To: "oMahoney(@cupertino.org" <oMahoney(@cupertino.or >, "gwonR @cupertino.org" <gwongRcupertino.org>, "msantoro(@cupertino.org" <msantoro @cupertino.org>, BChanR(@cupertino.org, RSinks(@cupertino.org > Subject: Need to file a Lehigh amicus brief > Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 20:15:52 -0700 > I would hope that the City Council would unanimously vote to file an amicus brief that shows your desire to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of Cupertino. I find it amazing that the Council hasn't verbalized unanimously chosing to take this course of action, considering it has such a devastating affect for minimal effort & cost. > Sincerely, > Nadine Grant > 10463 Heney Creek P1 > Cupertino , CA 95014 > Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it. > http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOLT2 1 Karen B. Guerin From: MaryAnn [masullivan_2000 @yahoo com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 5:33 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: RE: Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Support Amicus Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council member Chang, Council member Santoro, and Council member Sinks - I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry is a major air and water pollution source. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (RACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. I hope you will join with the Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Respectfully, MaryAnn Sullivan 1 Karen B. Guerin From: gbl36@comcast.net Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 6:17 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Lehigh -about 9/17 agenda 0 prevent Lehigh from expanding mine activities without applying for a use permit. For public comment record: Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council member Chang, Council member Santoro, and Council member Sinks, I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. In my opinion Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry continues to demonstrate ongoing violations with a long record of violating important mining regulations and they are a major air and water pollution source, especially for us in Cupertino. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the recent Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." I hope you will join with these respected groups - Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District - in thE!ir amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Let's do this and support ourselves and our neighboring communities. Respectfully, Gail Bower Orange Ave Cupertino, CA i 9-�7-/3 Karen B. Guerin From: gloria santilo [gsantilo @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 6:51 PM To: omahoney @cuperino.org; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Request to Support Abicus Brief- Etay Area for Clean Environment on Lehigh Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council member Chang, Council member Santoro, and Council member Sinks, I am writing to you today to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting the Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant. Lehigh is a gross polluter and should be subject to the current air standards and regulated. Respectfully, Gloria Santilo 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Karen Patti [pattikaren @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 9:01 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Lehigh cement plant To: omahoney(a,cupertino.org, gwong@cupertino.org, bchang(cD-cupertino.org, msantoro(a)-cupertino.org, rsinks ,cupertino.org Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Councilmember Chang, Councilmember Santoro, and Councilmember Sinks, I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. I view the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry as having ongoing problems. This company has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand raining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the recent Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." I hope you will join with the Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back.our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, Karen Patti i -7-19 LE4--ewv Karen B. Guerin From: Terri Hoornstra [terrihoornstra @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 8:59 PM To: Rod Sinks Subject: Amicus Vote Matters! Dear Council Member Sinks, Since you have always been supportive of a clean environment, I know you will vote to join the Mid-Peninsula Open Space District, and the Cities of Los Altos and Los Altos Hills in the amicus brief with the BACE vested rights lawsuit. I wanted to share with you the letter I have sent to the other Council Members. Cupertino is a "cluster" of autism. In the light of the recent study from Harvard (the latest of 5 studies) linking mercury and diesel pollution to the probability of a child being born with autism, our city must take every step possible on the side of limiting Lehigh's production of these harmful emissions. The fact that Lehigh has allowed mercury levels to rise high above EPA standards is alarming. As a teacher for 23 years at Regnart Elementary, I have seen the lives of many students altered by autism, and I've seen the worry and heartache of parents affected by their children's condition. The residents of Cupertino need you to be proactive to protect our environment. This is a moment where your leadership can make a difference. Thank you, Terri Hoornstra 10531 Manzanita Ct. Cupertino, CA 1 ae- q -7-i3 Karen B. Guerin From: Terri Hoornstra [terrihoornstra @yahz)o.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 8:43 f'M To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Amicus Vote Matters! Dear Mayor Mahoney, I am writing to encourage you to vote to join the Mid-Peninsula Open Space District, and the Cities of Los Altos and Los Altos Hills in the amicus brief with the BACE vested rights lawsuit. Cupertino is a "cluster" of autism. In the light of the recent study from Harvard (the latest of 5 studies) linking mercury and diesel pollution to the probability of a child being born with autism, our city must take every step possible on the side of limiting Lehigh's production of these harmful emissions. The fact that Lehigh has allowed mercury levels to rise high above EPA standards is alarming. As a teacher for 23 years at Regnart Elementary, I have seen the lives of many students altered by autism, and I've seen the worry and heartache of parents affected by their children's condition. The residents of Cupertino need you to be proactive to protect our environment. This is a moment where your leadership can make a difference. Thank you, Terri Hoornstra 10531 Manzanita Ct. Cupertino, CA 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Terri Hoornstra [terrihoornstra @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 9:02 PM To: Barry Chang Subject: Amicus Vote Matters! Dear Council Member Chang, I know you have always been supportive of a clean environment, so I know you will vote to join the Mid-Peninsula Open Space District, and the Cities of Los Altos and Los Altos Hills in the amicus brief with the BACE vested rights lawsuit. I wanted to share with you the letter I have sent to the other council members. Cupertino is a "cluster" of autism. In the light of the recent study from Harvard (the latest of 5 studies) linking mercury and diesel pollution to the probability of a child being born with autism, our city must take every step possible on the side of limiting Lehigh's production of these harmful emissions. The fact that Lehigh has allowed mercury levels to rise high above EPA standards is alarming. As a teacher for 23 years at Regnart Elementary, I have seen the lives of many students altered by autism, and I've seen the worry and heartache of parents affected by their children's condition. The residents of Cupertino need you to be proactive to protect our environment. This is a moment where your leadership can make a difference. Thank you, Terri Hoornstra 10531 Manzanita Ct. Cupertino, CA 1 Karen B. Guerin From: karen iwamoto [kliwa @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 11:26 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Amicus Brief to support BACE Please join the Los Altos Hills City Council and the Los Altos City Council on filing the amicus brief to support the Mid peninsula Open Space District and BACE to prevent Lehigh from expanding mine activities without applying for a use permit. Thank you, Karen Iwamoto 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Gregory Baker[gbaker @scu.edu] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 3:25 AM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Please vote to file amicus brief in Lehigh matter Dear Mr. Mahoney, I strongly urge you to vote in favor of filing the amicus brief in the Lehigh matter so as to protect the citizens of Cupertino. Sincerely, Gregory A. Baker 23615 Oak Valley Road Cupertino, CA 95014 Typos courtesy of my iPad �- 9- -7-i3 -.i-9,4•x.2 Karen B. Guerin From: C Liou [carol_liou @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 11:22 PM Subject: Lehigh Cement Plan Dear Cupertino Council Person, The Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) has filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant (Lehigh), contending that the Santa Clara County has distorted the"doctorine of non-conforming use" in a way such that it shall allow Lehigh to bypass important processes meant to protect the residents and environment surrounding Lehigh. In particular, Lehigh currently seeks to expand their mining activities, and Santa Clara County's distortion of the non-conforming use doctorine would allow Lehigh to expand their mine activities without first undergoing the important process of applying for a use permit. The Los Altos Hills City Council and Los Altos City Council are filing an amicus brief to support both the Midpeninsula Open Space District and BACE in preventing Lehigh Cement Quarry from expanding mine activities without first applying for a use permit. I'm writing this email to ask that the Cupertino Council follow suit, and also file an amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit. Since the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) will draft the amicus brief, your staff does not need to spend a lot of time, effort or expense in filing the brief. Lehigh is the largest polluter of mercury, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides in the Peninsula and South Bay, and is located in extremely close proximity to a very large number of Cupertino and Los Altos residents. Lehigh also has a long history of violating the Federal Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Labor laws and State Mining laws. I would want *all* corporations to diligently follow the requirements and processes that have been carefully put in place to protect the residents and environment surrounding it. But considering the type of pollutants Lehigh generates, its close proximity to a very large number of Silicon Valley residents, and its history of violations, Lehigh especially should not receive lenient interpretations of policies. Please file an amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit. Thank you, Carol Liou Cupertino Resident carol liou @vahoo.com 1 c-e- 9-17-13 ALP- Karen B. Guerin From: Eran Cohen [eran99 @comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 10:56 PM To: jennieshabel @juno.com; Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks Subject: RE: Need to file a Lehigh amicus brief Agreed as well. I'd like to let the representatives know that whoever wants our vote next elections need to prove that the below subject is their first priority. Every resident of Cupertino I ever spoke to about this subject thinks so as well, so I believe that most (if not all) residents thinks similarly. I encourage the representatives to reach out to all Cupertino citizens and find that out for themselves. Eran Cohen -----Original Message----- From: jennieshabel( iuno.com [mailto:iennieshabel(a)iuno.com] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 9:32 PM To: oMahoney(@cupertino.or6; gwong(acupertino.org; msantoro( cupertino.org; BChang(@cupertino.org; RSinks(@cupertino.org Subject: Re: Need to file a Lehigh amicus brief I also agree with this email. I and I assume all. the people of Cupertino, would expect our representatives on the Cupertino City council to represent their constituents and file an amicus brief in our behalf. If not, I believe we need to elect people who can properly represent our interests and health of their constituents. Please, we all need to raise our voices and get what we expect from the Cupertino City Council. Thank You, Jack & Jennie Shabel 22622 Oakcrest Ct. Cupertino, Ca. 95014 ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Nadine Grant <nadine(@daveandnadine.com> To: "oMahoney(@cupertino.org" <oMahoney(@cupertino.org>, "gwong(@cupertino.org" <gwong(@cupertino.org>, "msantoro(@cupertino.org" <msantoro(@cupertino.org>, BChang cupertino.org, RSinks(@cupertino.org Subject: Need to file a Lehigh amicus brief Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 20:15:52 -0700 I would hope that the City Council would unanimously vote to file an amicus brief that shows your desire to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of Cupertino. I find it amazing that the Council hasn't verbalized unanimously chosing to take this course of action, considering it has such a devastating affect for minimal effort & cost. Sincerely, Nadine Grant 1 10463 Heney Creek P1 Cupertino , CA 95014 Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2 2 Karen B. Guerin From: chunhwei chen [chunhwei @gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 10:34 PM To: Barry Chang Subject: Support Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant To: omahoneyCa)-cupertino.org, gwong(d)-cupertino.ora, bchang(aD-cupertino.org, msantoro(cr�cupertino.org, rsinks _cupertino.orq Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council member Chang, Council member Santoro, and Council member Sinks, I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. I view the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry as having ongoing problems. This company has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the recent Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." I hope you will join with the Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, Chun Hwei Chen i Karen B. Guerin From: Alan Penn [alanp_usa @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 10:26 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Please file an amicus brief to suppoil BACE's lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant(Lehigh) Dear City Council members, Few days ago, Los Alto City Council unanimously approved to join Town of Los Altos Hills and Midpeninsula Regional Space District(MROSD) to file an amicus brief to support Bay Area for Clean Environment's (BACE's) lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant(Lehigh). We are long term residents living in this area, through the years Lehigh continuously violating the regulations, now it is the time to stop. We would appreciate if you can represent us for our best interest to vote. Please follow Los Altos Hills and MROSD to support filing an amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant(Lehigh). Thanks. Alan i Karen B. Guerin From: Stewart Kelly [stu.kelly @yahoo.com:1 Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 10:26 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Rod Sinks; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro Subject: 9/17 City Council meeting, item#22 Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council member Chang, Council member Santoro, and Council member Sinks, I strongly urge you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. As a Cupertino resident living just to the east of the Lehigh facility since 2002, 1 was quite surprised to learn several years ago that the facility is one of the largest sources of mercury pollution in the state. Mercury in food has been recognized as a serious health hazard since the 1970s, and the Council has been shown recent research about links between mercury exposure and autism. Compounding the danger posed by mercury, the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry has a poor record in regard to mining regulations and protecting air and watEtr quality. For the safety of residents in Cupertino and surrounding communities, the Lehigh facility requires more governmental oversight. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, Stewart Kelly Cupertino resident i Karen B. Guerin From: jennieshabel @juno.com Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 9:32 F'M To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks Subject: Re: Need to file a Lehigh amicus brief I also agree with this email. I and I assume all the people of Cupertino, would expect our representatives on the Cupertino City council to represent their constituents and file an amicus brief in our behalf. If not, I believe we need to elect people who can properly represent our interests and health of their constituents. Please, we all need to raise our voices and get what we expect from the Cupertino City Council. Thank You, Jack & Jennie Shabel 22622 Oakcrest Ct. Cupertino, Ca. 95014 ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Nadine Grant <nadine(@daveandnadine.com> To: "oMahoney(@cupertino.org" <oMahoneyoc upertino.org>, "gwong0cupertino.org" <gwong(@cupertino.org>, "msantoro(a@cupertino.org" <msantoro @cupertino.org>, BChang(@cupertino.org, RSinks(@cupertino.org Subject: Need to file a Lehigh amicus brief Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 20:15:52 -0700 I would hope that the City Council would unanimously vote to file an amicus brief that shows your desire to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of Cupertino. I find it amazing that the Council hasn't verbalized unanimously chosing to take this course of action, considering it has such a devastating affect for minimal effort & cost. Sincerely, Nadine Grant 10463 Heney Creek P1 Cupertino , CA 95014 Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2 1 C-(2- q-1-7-13 Z-4- 0-2*A- Karen B. Guerin From: Raghurama Bhat[raghu @gokul.com] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 8:27 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry issue Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council member Chang, Council member Santoro, and Council member Sinks, I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. I view the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry as having ongoing problems. This company has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the recent Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." I hope you will-join with the Los Altos Hills City Council. Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, Raghurama Bhat Vathsala Bhat 10670 Merriman Road Cupertino i e-0- q-17- 13 Karen B. Guerin From: Nadine Grant[nadine @daveandnacline.com] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 8:16 F'M To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks Subject: Need to file a Lehigh amicus brief I would hope that the City Council would unanimously vote to file an amicus brief that shows your desire to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of Cupertino. I find it amazing that the Council hasn't verbalized unanimously chosing to take this course of action, considering it has such a devastating affect for minimal effort & cost. Sincerely, Nadine Grant 10463 Heney Creek PI Cupertino , CA 95014 1 Karen B. Guerin From: John Buenz Ubuenz0835 @att.net] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 6:20 F'M To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Cupertino_suppport_amicus_brief_sample_letter To: omahoney(cD-cupertino.org, gwong(a-)-cupertino.org, bchanga-cupertino.org, msantoro(d,)cupertino.org, rsinks _cupertino.org Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council member Chang, Council member Santoro, and Council member Sinks, I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. I view the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry as having ongoing problems. This company has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the recent Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." I hope you will join with the Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, John and Marilyn Buenz 22115 Dean Ct, Cupertino CA 95014 i �c 9- 17- Karen B. Guerin From: Anand Gangadharan [anand @india.org] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 6:24 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Please support the Midpeninsula Open Space District and BACE with an amicus brief To: omahoney(aD-cupertino.org, gwong(D-cupertino.org, bchang(d-)cupertino.orq, msantoroCa)_cupertino.org, rsinks(D-cupertino.org Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council member Chang, Council member Santoro, and Council member Sinks: I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. I view the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry as having ongoing problems conforming to mining regulations. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. I hope you will join with the Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, Anand Gangadharan Lebanon Dr., Cupertino, CA 95014 i Karen B. Guerin From: Jeannie[jksunflower @g mail.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 10:11 AM To: Barry Chang Subject: Amicus to support Bay Area for Clean Environment(BACE) Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council members Chang, Santoro and Sinks, We are asking you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry has ongoing problems. Lehigh has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. You can see their pollution on the hillside, especially in Rancho San Antonio park. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(MROSD) Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the 9/5/13 Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." We hope you will join with the city councils of Los Altos Hills, Lcs Altos, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our Cupertino and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, Jeannie and Jonathan Kimura Cupertino residents 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Jeannie Uksunflower @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 10:07 AM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; bchange @cupertino.org; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Amicus to support Bay Area for Clean Environment(BACE) Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council members Chang, Santoro and Sinks, We are asking you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry has ongoing problems. Lehigh has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. You can see their pollution on the hillside, especially in Rancho San Antonio park. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the 9/5/13 Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." We hope you will join with the city councils of Los Altos Hills, Los Altos, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our Cupertino and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, Jeannie and Jonathan Kimura Cupertino residents 1 Ce- 7- 13 � Karen B. Guerin From: Paul Dueweke [pwdueweke @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 6:07 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Please file an amicus brief to support BACE Cupertino City Council, Please file an amicus brief to support the Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) lawsuit against Lehigh Cement and the Santa Clara County, whose Board of Supervisors unilaterally decided that the Lehigh right to pollute and to expand their pollution supersedes our rights to a healthy environment. Paul Dueweke Marilyn Dueweke i 0-01 Karen B. Guerin From: Chester Gabriel [gabrie1002 @comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 3:51 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Amicus Brief in No Toxic Air, Inc. v. Santa Clara County, et al We urge you to join the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) and the City of Los Altos Hills by signing an amicus brief with the No Toxic Air, Inc. v. Santa Clara County, et al. lawsuit. The current ruling of the County Board of Supervisors gives Lehigh a blank check to pollute. Chester and Cynthia Gabriel 10334 Scenic Blvd Cupertino, CA 1 Karen B. Guerin From: John Hopkins Un_hopkins2005 @yahoo.com1 Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 3:31 PM To: City Council Subject: Amicus Brief Cupertino City Council We recommend that you vote in favor of joining Los Altos Hills and Los Altos City in support of the amicus brief, agenda item 22 in the City Council meeting scheduled for 17 September 2013. Thank you John and Carolyn Hopkins 11395 Canyon View Cir Cupertino, CA 95014 i Karen B. Guerin From: Susan Sievert[spsievert @g mail.coin] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 12:55 PM To: City Council Subject: September 17: Agenda Item 22 Written Communication for Sept. 17,2013:Agenda Item 22 Dear Cupertino City Council, Please join the Amicus Brief supporting the court appeal to correct the County Board of Supervisors'error in judgement. Background I'm going to focus briefly on one of the Board's vested rights errors. In 1995,the Hanson Permanente Quarry(now Lehigh) purchased a property. In 2006, Leigh-Hanson's legal counsel, Diepenbrock Harrison,described this acquisition as follows: "Next to the cement plant is the former aluminum plant site,which covers approximately 153 acres.The site was under completely separate ownership from the quarry until 1995,when the owners sold the defunct plant to[Hanson owned] Kaiser Cement.The aluminum plant is not used, nor has it ever been used, to process mined material from Permanente Quarry."(1) Soon after this site was purchased,the Quarry began using it as a dumping ground for mining waste. Public pressure led to Notices of Violations (NOVs), a stunning attempt to hide their expansion within a Reclamation Plan Amendment, and a written agreement with the County, but without a public hearing,to allow the dumping to continue.(.2) Finally,the Board agendized the controversy as an all-encompassing vested rights question, and, as if on cue, Lehigh-Hanson began claiming a vested right to mine the former aluminum plant site—purchased in 1995. Were there any mining disturbances on this 153-acre site recorded in the Quarry's Reclamation Plan in 1985? None. Did Lehigh- Hanson make a vested rights claim prior to or after receiving NOVs in 2006 and 2008? No.Was there a vested rights claim made in the 2009 written agreement to continue the dumping?No. According to a County staff's investigation, Lehigh-Hanson's vested rights claim had no basis in fact. But that wasn't enough to persuade the Board to rule in favor of the evidence. Again, please join the Amicus Brief. If the Board's ruling is allowed to stand,what will prevent mining operations throughout the state from acquiring adjacent lands,and transferring vested rights to those lands? Thank you for your time. Susan Sievert (1) Lehigh Hanson 01-04-11 Appendix G-Vested Rights Affirmations, page 286. (2)AGREEMENT: County of Santa Clara, File 2250—09P 1 i3 3E:�43,i -A.2,2- Karen B. Guerin From: DLBodwin [Diane @Bodwin.us] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 7:50 AM To: City Council Subject: support for amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit Please count my voice in favor of urging the Cupertino City Council to file an amicus brief to support Bay Area for Clean Environment's (BACE's) lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant (Lehigh). Diane Bodwin 22475 Palm Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 i Karen B. Guerin From: jason whong Dason_whong @hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 11:17 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Sept. 17 Meeting Dear Cupertino City Council Members: Please vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment ("BACE") on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights and join the Los Altos City Council, Los Altos Hills City Council and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in taking action against air and water pollution in our community. Lehigh has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. The County Board of Supervisors issued a decision in March 2011, which inappropriately allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit. On May 27, 2011, BACE filed a lawsuit against the Board and Lehigh requesting reversal of the March 2011 decision. Please urge the court to overturn the Board's decision by filing an amicus brief supporting BACE on this issue. Thank you, as Cupertino should send a message that it is united with its neighbors to protect our homes, schools and communities. Respectfully, Jason Whong Karen B. Guerin From: Panos &Christina Kougiouris [pc @Mcougiouris.org] Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 10:49 PM To: Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang Subject: Filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights To: omahoney(aD-cupertino.orq, gwonga)-cupertino.org, bchang(),cupertino.orq, msantoro(aD-cupertino.orq, rsinks(a-)-cupertino.org Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Councilmember Chang, Councilmember Santoro, and Councilmember Sinks, I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. I view the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry as having ongoing problems. This company has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the recent Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." I hope you will join with the Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, i Karen B. Guerin From: Gary Ettinger[gary@ettingers.org] Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 7:OC PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barnf Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Please vote to join the Amicus brief City Council members, Please vote for joining the city of Los Altos Hills,the city of Los Altos and the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District in an amicus brief with BACE's vested rights lawsuit to protect the ability of local agencies to maintain oversight of the cement plant and quarry. Sincerely, Gary Ettinger 10948 Sycamore Drive Cupertino 1 GC Q- 1-13 Karen B. Guerin From: Eva Kashkooli [evarieber @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 1:32 PM To: Rod Sinks Subject: amicus brief Hi Rod, Fred and I fully support your position on the arnicus brief that the MOSD and other cities have already endorsed. Thank you, Eva Kashkooli Cupertino voter i Karen B. Guerin From: Eva Kashkooli [evarieber @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 1:29 PM To: Barry Chang Subject: amicus brief Hi Barry, Just want to make sure you know that Fred and I fully support your effort to correct the serious problems with Lehigh Cement. Thank you for your perseverance in this regard, Eva Kashkooli i Karen B. Guerin From: Eva Kashkooli [evarieber @yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 5:12 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: amicus brief Please support the MOSD & BACE by voting for the amicus brief. Your vote in favor of this matter will mean you are protecting your constituents against air and water pollution. Thank you, Eva Kashkooli Cupertino voter Karen B. Guerin From: Eva Kashkooli [evarieber @yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 5:17 PM To: Mark Santoro Subject: amicus brief Please vote to support the MOSD & BACE by voting for the amicus brief. Your support of this matter will mean you are trying to protect your constituents from air and water pollution. Thanks, Eva Kashkooli Cupertino voter i t3 Karen B. Guerin From: Eva Kashkooli [evarieber @yahoo.ccim] Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 5:15 PM To: Gilbert Wong Subject: amicus brief Please vote to support MOSD & BACE by voting for the amicus brief. Your vote in favor of this brief will mean you are trying to protect your constituents against air and water pollution. Thanks, Eva Kashkooli Cupertino voter i Karen B. Guerin From: Chris Toomey [ctoomey @gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 3:26 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Please vote for joining amicus brief with BACE's vested rights lawsuit Dear City Council Members, Please vote for joining the city of Los Altos Hills, the city of Los Altos and the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District in an amicus brief with BACE's vested rights lawsuit to protect the ability of local agencies to maintain oversight of the cement plant and quarry. Thank you for your support of this important action to help protect cur health and environment. Chris Toomey 23694 Black Oak Way Cupertino 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Vicky Yue Ho [vickyyueho @yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 1:56 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Vote to support controlling our environment Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council member Chang, Council member Santoro, and Council member Sinks, I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. Enough of the mercury emission, fumes, noise, pollution from those trucks in our neighborhood 24/7. They do not belong to our neighborhood. I view the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry as having ongoing problems. This company has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the recent Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue ,is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." I hope you will join with the Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, Karen B. Guerin From: Jack Hamilton Uhamiltonca @earthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 12:14 PM To: City Council Subject: Action at City Council Meeting on September 17 Dear City Council members, I'm writing to urge all of you to vote on September 17 for joining Los Altos Hills and the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District in an amicus brief with BACE's vested rights lawsuit to protect the ability of local agencies to maintain oversight of the Kaiser Permanente cement plant that is located in the foothills above Cupertino on the northeast slopes of Black Mountain. Many of the residents at The Forum at Rancho San Antonio have respiratory difficulties that are exasperated by the particulate emanating from the Kaiser Permanente cement plant stacks. If scrubbers were to be installed on the stacks at the plant, it would alleviate this problem. Best regards, Jack Hamilton, Ph.D. 23500 Cristo Rey Drive, #305E Cupertino, CA 95014 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Susan Rinsky[susons @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 11:02 AM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks; Mark Santoro Subject: Fwd: Amicus to support Bay Area for Clean Environment(BACE) Subject: Amicus to support Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Cou ncilmembers Chang, Santoro, and Sinks, I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. I view the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry as having ongoing problems. This company has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the 9/5/13 Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are? united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." I hope you will join with the Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, Dr. Lawrence A Rinsky Karen B. Guerin From: joy barrett Doynjoe2 @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 11:12 AM To: City Council Subject: Lehigh Cement Dear Council Member, Lehigh Cement Plant has a long record of violating important mining regulations and polluting our city as well as other cities in the area. Now they are being allowed to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit which would place reasonable limits on them. I am asking you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. Respectively, Joy Barrett i 0- 17- Karen B. Guerin From: Bill Walster[billwalster @gmail.com] on behalf of G. William (Bill) Walster[bill @walster.net] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 11:05 AM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Cc: Barry Chang Subject: amicus brief in support of the Bay Area for Clean Environment's (BACE's) lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant(Lehigh) Honorable Mayor Orrin Mahoney, Vice Mayor Gilbert Wong, Council member Mark Santoro, and Council member Rod Sinks: I write to urge you file an amicus brief(joining the city of:Los Altos, the town of Los Altos Hills and the Midpeninsula Regional Space District (MROSD)) in support of the Bay Area for Clean Environment's (BACE's) lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant (Lehigh). When I lived in Cupertino, I could see on a daily basis the huge amount of pollution emitted by Lehigh. Then, I learned about the mercury and other toxic chemicals Lehigh emits into both our air and water, and the impacts they have on fetal brain development. Then, by chance, I met Barry Change, who was campaigning door-to-door in my neighborhood, and asked if elected, would he work on the Cupertino City Council to force Lehigh to obey the law and stop its pollution. Because of his answer, I joined his campaign and others who are committed to clean up the Lehigh blight on our environment and danger to public health and safety. I now live in Sunnyvale. My wife and I have long admired how well and progressively Sunnyvale is run. It will send a strong message if Sunnyvale and Cupertino join other cities, towns, and the MROSD in support of BACE's lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh. Within the doctrine of nonconforming use, rules allowing nonconforming use should be narrowly construed because nonconforming use is highly disfavored. The issue in BACE's appeal is that Santa Clara County has outrageously distorted the doctrine of nonconforming use. The County Supervisors overruled its own staffs recommendation and gave much more than what Lehigh had originally requested. Given the fact that Lehigh is the largest polluter of mercury, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides in the Peninsula and South Bay, compounded with Lehigh's long history of violating the Federal Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Labor laws and State Mining laws, it is our duty to stop these violations and to protect our residents' health and safety. It has been proven that we can accomplish more to protect public health and the economic engine here in Silicon Valley. More than a year ago, City of Los Altos joined Town of Los Altos Hills and City of Cupertino. We sent a letter to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and asked for more protective rules for cleaner air from the cement industry. With our efforts together, BAAQMD did issue stricter rules for Regulation 9, Rule 13 which went into effect on September 9, 2013. This provides a cleaner air for our residents two years ahead of EPA's new rules. Working together, we can protect our residents' health. Lehigh is very unique, for it is the only cement plant in operation in the United States which is so close to large populous metropolitan area. And it is the only cement plant that next to Silicon Valley, the high tech power engine for our region, our state and our nation. As you know that high tech industry is very competitive. It relies heavily on innovation - which depends on the brain power of highly-educated people. Lehigh's pollution and violation of the laws needs to be reined in to protect the health and brain power of these people. 1 Since Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) will draft the amicus brief, your staff does not need to spend a lot of time to prepare for it. You can set a limit for the cost not to exceed $5,000. When there are more cities joining MROSD, Town of Los Altos Hills and City of Los Altos, the cost can be further reduced. With a relatively small amount of money and minimum amount of work from City staff, you can show your constituents that you are protecting their health and the economic engine in Silicon Valley. Please file an amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit. Together, we can bring Lehigh into compliance with the laws and protect our residents' health. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Barry Chang, or Mr. Stuart Flashman, Esq., at 510- 652-5373 (0), 510-504-0154 (Cel) <stu a,stuflash.com>. Thank you in advance for your help. Sincerely, Dr. G. William Walster, Ph. D. z Karen B. Guerin From: Susan Rinsky [susons @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 11:0'2 AM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barns Chang; Rod Sinks; Mark Santoro Subject: Fwd: Amicus to support Bay Area for Clean Environment(BACE) Subject: Amicus to support Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Councilmembers Chang, Santoro, and Sinks, I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. I view the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry as having ongoing problems. This company has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the 9/5/13 Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more ,importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." I hope you will join with the Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, Dr. Lawrence A Rinsky 9 7 s� Karen B. Guerin From: Jiaqian Diagian @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 12:00 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: BACE Dear Cupertino council members: Please support the Midpeninsula Open space District and BACE with amicus brief. Regards, Julia Wan Sent from my iPad 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Rhoda Fry [fryhouse @earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 12:06 PM To: City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk Subject: Item#22, Committee for Green Foothills Attachments: CGF letter re BACE amicus brief 9.9.13.pdf Dear City Council, Please find attached letter that the Committee for Green Foothills sent to the City of Los Altos. It contains information that is equally applicable to citizens of Cupertino. Sincerely, Rhoda Fry 1 COMMITTEE FOR GREEN FOOTHILLS September 9, 2013 Los Altos City Council 1 North San Antonio Road Los Altos, CA council!a,losaltosca.�v_ RE: Bay Area Clean Environment amicus brief Dear Members of the Los Altos City Council, Committee for Green Foothills strongly urges the City Council to join Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District(MROSD) in filing an amicus brief in the case of No Toxic Air Inc. v. Santa Clara County, et al., Case No. H039547 (6th District). Committee for Green Foothills(CGF) is an environmental organization dedicated to preserving open space and natural resources in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. We have members living in the neighborhood of Lehigh Permanente Quarry, including members in Los Altos. CGF has a strong interest in protecting the environment of the hillsides and nearby areas, including Permanente Creek. Although the issues in the above-referenced case are complex,the principle behind it is simple: activities that cause environmental impacts should be subject to reasonable regulation. Unfortunately,the County's decision regarding Lehigh's vested rights left the quarry's activities exempt from regulation, in spite of the fact that this heavy industrial use is ongoing right next to residential neighborhoods. It is important that not only the court but also the County of Santa Clara, whose decision regarding the vested rights of Lehigh Permanente Quarry is being appealed in this case, hear the message that all of the cities that border on the quarry property are concerned about whether the quarry activities are being properly regulated. Even if this lawsuit is unsuccessful, Los Altos' action in joining this amicus brief will not be wasted if the County is made aware that Los Altos takes this issue seriously and is concerned about the regulation of the mining activities taking place on its borders. Please join MROSD's amicus brief to show that Los Altos, along with the quarry's other neighbors, supports reasonable regulation of the quarry's mining activity. Sincerely, V Alice Kaufman Legislative Advocate, Committee for Green Foothills COMMITTEE FOR 3921 E. Bayshore Road 650.9E.8.7243 PHONE info@GreenFoothills.org GREEN FOOTHILLS Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.968.8431 FAX www.GreenFoothills.org Karen B. Guerin From: RICHARD ADLER [radler @digiplaces.com] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 12:43 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Agenda item#21 Dear Council Member Mahoney, On Tuesday,the City Council will consider a small but important, request(agenda item#21) for the City to sponsor a Positive Aging Conference at the Quinlan Center in November. I had an opportunity to participate in earlier Positive Aging events sponsored by the same group in both Cupertino and Palo Alto. The last event in Cupertino, held in 2008, drew over 125 participants. That event was a satellite for a larger national conference that was taking place in Wisconsin, but this year's conference will be a stand-alone event that focuses specifically on issues related to the aging of the population in Cupertino and surrounding communities. As Cupertino's senior population continues to grow,this is an important project. Several years ago, I led a year-long research project for the City of San Mateo that resulted in a report titled Arming Well San Mateo that provided that community with a blueprint for making itself a more aging-friendly community. I would like to see Cupertino begin to consider some of these same issues. As I understand it, city sponsorship of this event would alleviate the group of having to pay a rental fee for use of the Quinlan Center.This is a very small amount for the city, but would be very helpful to the conference organizers — and would allow the City of Cupertino to publicly show its support for this project. Please vote for this request. Thanks, Richard 10778 Juniper Ct Cupertino,CA 95014 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Alice Kaufman [alice @greenfoothills.org] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 1:07 PM To: City Council Subject: Amicus brief in No Toxic Air, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Attachments: CGF_Cupertino_amicus brief_9.16.,13.pdf Dear Members of the Cupertino City Council, Attached is Committee for Green Foothills' comment letter on the above-referenced matter. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. ACice Kaufman Legislative Advocate, Committee for Green Foothills 650-968-7243 x.313 3921 East Bayshore Road Palo Alto,CA 94303 www.greenfoothills.org 1 COMMITTEE FOR GREEN FOOTHILLS September 16, 2013 Cupertino City Council 10350 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA citycouncil(c�cupertino.org RE: Bay Area Clean Environment amicus brief Dear Members of the Cupertino City Council, Committee for Green Foothills strongly urges the City Council to join Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District(MROSD) and the cities of Los Altos and Los Altos Hills in filing an amicus brief in the case of No Toxic Air, Inc. v. Santa Clara Coun , , et al., Case No. H039547 (6th District). Committee for Green Foothills (CGF) is an environmental organization dedicated to preserving open space and natural resources in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. We have members living in the neighborhood of Lehigh Permanente Quarry, including members in Cupertino. CGF has a strong interest in protecting the environment of the hillsides and nearby areas, including Permanente Creek. Although the issues in the above-referenced case are complex,the principle behind it is simple: activities that cause environmental impacts should be subject to reasonable regulation. Unfortunately, the County's decision regarding Lehigh's vested rights left the quarry's activities exempt from regulation, in spite of the fact that this heavy industrial use is ongoing right next to residential neighborhoods. It is important that not only the court but also the County of Santa Clara, whose decision regarding the vested rights of Lehigh Permanente Quarry is being appealed in this case, hear the message that all of the cities that border on the quarry property are concerned about whether the quarry activities are being properly regulated. Even if this lawsuit is unsuccessful, Cupertino's action in joining this amicus brief will not be wasted if the County is made aware that the City of Cupertino takes this issue seriously and is concerned about the regulation of the mining activities taking place on its borders. Please join MROSD, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills in this amicus brief to show that Cupertino, along with the quarry's other neighbors, supports reasonable regulation of the quarry's mining activity. Sincerely, lk� Z�/ Alice Kaufman Legislative Advocate, Committee for Green Foothills COMMITTEE FOR 3921 E. Bayshore Road 650.96E.7243 PHONE info @GreenFoothills.org GREEN FOOTHILLS Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.96E.E431 FAX www.GreenFoothills.org Karen B. Guerin From: Arlene Chan [arlenech @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 12AC PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Fwd: City Council Meeting 9/17 To Whom it may Concern: Please join the Los Altos Hills City Council and the Los Altos City Council on filing the amicus brief to support the Midpeninsula Open Space District and BACE to prevent Lehigh from expanding mine activities without applying for a use permit. Thank you for your kind consideration. Yours, Arlene Chan Cupertino resident �- /7- )3 =e'en. - - Karen B. Guerin From: Don Potter[donald.potter @ieee.org] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 12:12 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council member Chang, Council member Santoro, and Council member Sinks, I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. I view the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry as having ongoing problems. This company has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff s recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the recent Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." I hope you will join with the Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, Donald R. Potter 21160 Canyon Oak Way Cupertino, CA i Karen B. Guerin From: Don MacCubbin [maccubb @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 1:37 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Amicus brief supporting Bay Area fcr Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights Mayor Mahoney. I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. In my opinion, the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry have been poor corporate citizens that have done environmental damage that adversely effects not only the natural ecosystems of the foothills but also the health and quality of life of the citizens of Cupertino and Los Altos. The company has a record of violating important mining regulations and is a major source air and water pollution. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BASE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to overturn a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. I sincerely believe the County Board of Supervisors were derelict in their duties in approving this decision. It is not the first time that the County has not done their due diligence regarding the Lehigh(previously Permanente, Heidelberg) operation - previously the California Bureau of Mines threatened to revoke the County's oversight of the mining operation due to substandard performance. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the recent Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cernent Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of earpansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." I hope you will do the right thing for the City of Cupertino, its residents and most importantly, the environment, and join with the Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh borders our city and its past poor performance and ongoing environmental impact demand proper regulation - not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws nor lack of sufficient oversight over their operations and expansive property holdings. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, Don MacCubbin 10144 Lebanon Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 i 17- 13 Karen B. Guerin From: Rhoda Fry [fryhouse @earth link.net;l Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 1:44 PM To: City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk Subject: Agenda item#22, please support MROSD and join Los Altos and Los Altos Hills w/Amicus Dear Cupertino City Council Members: Please join MROSD, Los Altos Hills, and Los Altos and vote for Amicus of Complaint regarding Santa Clara County Vested Rights Decision In February 2011, against the advice of its staff, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors granted the Lehigh Southwest quarry non-conforming legal use of approximately 2600 acres. The quarry's neighbor, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, submitted factual testimony to support the county staff's findings, but the County Board of Supervisors ignored it (our own district Supervisor overtly supported Lehigh Southwest, and the other Supervisors followed). A legal challenge by an environmental organization called BACE (Bay Area Clean Environment) filed a complaint and they need your help in affirming what the county staff had said all along, Lehigh Southwest does not have "vested rights" to all of these 2600 acres. Yes, Lehigh owns the land fair and square, but just as w:th any land owner, they should be subject to current regulations. Sadly, the consequences of this erroneous decision are severe; the quarry will be permitted to operate without a conditional use permit, which would have otherwise put reasonable zoning regulations on their operations that apply to modern mining companies elsewhere in the State of California such as: - Hours of Operation - Noise levels and times - Light levels and times - Vibration levels - Location of structures that support mining - Location of unsightly mining materials - Notification of neighbors for blasting times One of the most obvious errors made by the politically-motivated decision is where we now see a growing mountain of mining waste from Stevens Creek Boulevard, known as EMSA. This had been the headquarters of Kaiser Aluminum, a separate publicly-traded company that sold off its last parcel on the hill to the quarry in 1995. Originally, the land was acquired using Government loans earmarked for WWII and war weapons were manufactured there by the Permanente Metals Company. After the war, the company was renamed and they made pressed aluminum products (from airplane wings to household aluminum). Thus the land was never used for mining or accessible for mining until 1995. Here is a quote from County staff: "With respect to the proposed East Materials Storage Area, the County Geologist did not identify any quarrying-related disturbance as of 1948. Moreover, this land was sold to a separate corporation and developed/used intensively for metals manufacturing and related activities until the 1980s. Thus, any legal nonconforming use that may have been established on the proposed EMSA land was abandoned long ago." For years, the County has either willfully neglected or ignored problems with this quarry: i - In 1998, a number of toxic buildings were torn down and although permits were obtained, there is not record of inspections. Now we have no idea where the waste from these buildings is. In 2006, following a landslide from the Quarry into our Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, the County arranged for a land swap between the two parties. It appears there were no fines or punitive damages filed by the County. Also in 2006, the State Mining and Geology Board considered assuming regulatory oversight of the Permanente Quarry due to the County's inability to regulate it (and others in the County). Following public pressure, the County issued weak Notices of Violation addressing the mountain of mining waste called EMSA that is clearly visible from Stevens Creek Boulevard and continues to grow. As early as 2007, MROSD wrote letters to the county asking for better oversight. In 2011, in order to legitimize this waste mountain retro-actively, the county sought to give away zoning restrictions that would have otherwise been placed on mountain of mining wasted called EMSA. Also in 2011, the Office of Mine Reclamation, blasted the County for its inability to regulate the mine and threatened the mine with economic sanctions. In 2012, the Water Boards sent an 18-page missive to the County which the County ignored. In March 2013, the Water Boards considered filing suit, however a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club achieved their goals. It is troubling that so many politicians have been involved in this quarry. Cement company executive Tom Legan was a County Board Supervisor from 1982 - 1989 (and got in trouble with the FPPC and went to court for child molestation). Former cement company employee Barbara Koppel was a Cupertino Council Member for 8 years, served as BAAQMD board member, and ran for County Supervisor in 1996 (and got in trouble with the ethics panel for donations from the cement plant and from Jim Cuneen, a former assemblyperson who has also been and adviser to the plant). Who will take the place of former Councilmember Sandra James when she retires as a Lehigh public affairs person? Please halt the County's threats to our hillsides and send a strong message to the County that we expect and deserve appropriate regulation of this property. Thank You, Rhoda Fry 2 yd t f r t- t All, Pat L t nC#pp N 7' 3 Karen B. Guerin From: Ian Flint[ianflint @yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 2:03 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Lehigh Cement City Council, please vote for joining the city of Los Altos Hills, the city of Los Altos and the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District in an amicus brief with BACE's vested rights lawsuit to protect the ability of local agencies to maintain oversight of the cement plant and quarry. Thanks, Ian Flint 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Vasudeo Hadap [v_hadap @yahoo.c:om] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 2:53 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: City Council Meeting on Tuesday, 9117.. Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council member Chang, Council member Santoro, and Council member Sinks, I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vestE!d rights. I view the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry as having ongoing problems. This company has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the recent Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." I hope you will join with the Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, -vasudeo hadap Dear Neighbor, There is an important Cupertino City Council meeting regarding the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry on Tuesday 9/17/2013. Before Tuesday, September 17, you can help by sending an easy email (see attached sample) to the council members to request that the Cupertino City Council join with other cities and other organizations to try to prevent Lehigh from expanding mine activities without applying for a use permit. 1 On Tuesday night, the Cupertino City Council will be voting on whether to join the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Los Altos Hills City Council and the Los Altos City Council on a letter to the courts (called an amicus brief). Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the recent Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto served 8 years on the Palo Alto City Council where she also held the position of Mayor, and served for 3 years on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board which is how she first got to know about Lehigh. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." Link to the Cupertino City Council Study Session. http://cupertino.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=18&clip id=1542 Director Kishimoto speaks 1 hour and 19 minutes into the Cupertino City Council Meeting. Unlike modern mining operations in California, Lehigh Southwest is currently exempt from obtaining conditional use permits on a majority of their land. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The Board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. What you can do now (before Tuesday night): Email Cupertino City Council. omahoneyCD-cupertino.org, gwong(c-cupertino.orq, bchangflcupertino.org, msantoro(a�cupertino.orq, rsinks cupertino.org And write, Please support the Midpeninsula Open Space District and BACE with an amicus brief. You can see the attached sample letter. AND/OR On Tuesday September 17th, not beginning before 6:45 PM, attend the meeting and speak on agenda item #22 in support of the amicus brief that Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District plans to file. 2 Background Cuptertino City Staff report. http://cupertino.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?meta id=84699&view=&showpdf=1 3 9�/'? 113 Grace Schmidt .2�. From: Carol Korade Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 10:18 AM To: Grace Schmidt Subject: Fwd:Amicus Brief Background Begin forwarded message: From: "lames, Sandra L. (Cupertino) NA" <Sandra.James @LehighHanson.com> Date:September 16, 2013,9:44:31 AM PDT To: David Brandt<Davidb @cupertino.org>, Carol Korade<carolk @cupertino.org> Subject:Amicus Brief Background Dear David and Carol, I am sending you the following information on the Amicus Brief issue that is before the City Council on Tuesday's agenda. I have prepared for you an outline of the vested rights chronology that demonstrates that this process was public and transparent and that this late attack by cities against the county on a land use issue, instigated by Councilmember Chang, pits jurisdiction over jurisdiction and this cannot be constructive for city/county relationships. An amicus brief challenges the decision that the BOS made and pursuant to the filings in the lawsuit states that what they did was illegal. can only appreciate the intense amount of lobbying you must be receiving on this issue but I would respectfully request that you give serious consideration and not support Councilmember Chang's initiative. As of Monday our facility is one of the most environmentally compliant cement facilities in the country. We are two years ahead of the EPA reqjirements and within the next few months we will have our new stack under construction. From the testimony last week by the County, BAAQMD, and RWQCB we have been proactive and engaged in ensuring that we meet and in some cases exceed all of the regulations that we are required to operate under. These facts are in direct contrast to the hyperbole that has been slung against our operations at public comment at the September 5t" City Council meeting. As you are aware the Permanente site provides over 90% of all of the cement that used in the construction industry in Northern California (from roads, airports, corporate campuses, schools, the new 49er stadium, etc...) and is a critical facility to this industry and our local economy. Over the years the team at Permanente has taken great pride in being active in the Cupertino community and supporting the nonprofits that enhance the character of our city. Having Cupertino take a public stand and support a lawsuit that at its very senescence is attempting to put us out of business (and our 160 employees and hundreds of contractors) will have unknown consequences. Please let me know if you have any further questions... 1- On March 1, 2011 the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors(BOS) determined that a portion, but not all, of the Lehigh property was"vested." This means that the operation was commenced prior to the date the County first required a use permit for quarrying activities on the area. 1 2- In advance of taking this vote,the BOS did significant public noticing and outreach,giving any and all interested parties the chance to submit evidence and argument on the issue. 3- The BOS reviewed, literally,thousands of pages of evidence concerning the nature and extent of the historical uses on the site in making its determination. 4- The BOS followed advice from County Counsel on the relevant legal standards. 5- The BOS made formal findings explaining its decision and the evidentiary bases for it. 6- Legal challenge must be made within 30 days. 7- The only party making such a challenge was No Toxic Air(now having changed its name to Bay Area for a Clean Environment). On March 25 the trial court, after a detail two-day hearing looking at all the evidence,denied the legal challenge,finding that the BOS decision complied with law and that the decision was supported by substantial evidence. 8- NTA was ordered to pay Lehigh and the Courty over 10K in costs,which remain unpaid. 9- NTA filed an appeal of the trial court's decision. 10- No other party participated, attended or intervened in the trial court proceedings. 11- The precedent to join a challenge to the BOS decision is bad and made worse by the fact that there were many opportunities for affected parties to participate earlier, both in court and administratively. 12- Determining vested rights is a fact intensive inquiry that requires the exercise of discretion and judgment, like many land use decisions. All local jurisdictions are called upon to make such decisions routinely. Best Rsgards, Sandy Sandra James Public Affairs Manager Region West Lehigh Hanson 24001 Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino,CA 95014-5659 Tel: 408 996 4158 Cell: 408 316 0845 Sandra.James at7.LehighHanson.com 2 /7 Karen B. Guerin From: Sam Kao [sskao @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:01 AM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Cc: feikao3 @yahoo.com Subject: Please file an amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant(Lehigh) Dear City Council members, Few days ago, Los Alto City Council unanimously approved to join Town of Los Altos Hills and Midpeninsula Regional Space District(MROSD) to file an amicus brief to support Bay Area for Clean Environment's (BACE's) lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant(Lehigh). We are long term residents living in this area, through the years Lehigh continuously violating the regulations, now it is the time to stop. We would appreciate if you can represent us for our best interest to vote. Please follow Los Altos Hills and MROSD to support filing an amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant(Lehigh). Thanks. Sam 1 Karen B. Guerin From: j p Uoannep001 @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:52 AM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks; Barry Chang Subject: Please file an amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant Dear City Council members, Few days ago, Los Alto City Council unanimously approved to join Town of Los Altos Hills and Midpeninsula Regional Space District(MROSD)to file an amicus brief to support Bay Area for Clean Environment's (BACE's) lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant(Lehigh). We are long term residents living in this area, through the years Lehigh continuously violating the regulations, now it is the time to stop. We would appreciate if you can represent us for our best interest to vote. Please follow Los Altos Hills and MROSD to support filing an amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant(Lehigh). Thanks. Joanne 1 Karen B. Guerin From: donstaub @comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:06 AM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Tonight's City Council Meeting --9/17 Dear Cupertino City Council Members, Please fulfill your obligation to the citizens of Cupertino and join Los Altos and the Mid-peninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) in the filing of an amicus brief to support Bay Area for Clean Environment's (BACE's) lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant. Certainly, other neighboring cities will also join this action -- don't leave Cupertino out! am sure you have already seen all the backup documents supporting this action. If not, let me know and I will be glad to send them. Thank you, Don Staub i LG 7- l3 T`4r,4 .2- Karen B. Guerin From: Marylin McCarthy[m4 @earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:21 AM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Amicus Brief Agenda Item Honorable Mayor Mahoney. As you know, the Los Altos City Council unanimously approved to join the Town of Los Altos Hills and the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) to file an amicus brief to support Bay Area for Clean Environment's (BACE's) lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant (Lehigh) on September 10, 2013. Tonight at the September 17th city council meeting I hope that the council makes a similar decision. Council members in the past few years have been exposed to not only the pollution generated by the Lehigh facility but to the increasing amount of data that supports stricter emissions standards for the Leigh plant operations coming from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and local residents, especially home town organizations like BACE. In fact the BAAQMD has now implemented Regulation 9, Rule 13 that went into effect on September 9, 2013. This regulation provides cleaner air for our residents two years ahead of EPA's new rules. The reason is so obvious- the Lehigh facility is the only cement plant operating so close to millions of people. Maybe the Santa County Board of Supervisors and the Santa Clara County Planning office were remiss in past years for allowing so many people to build housing so close to the then Kaiser facility, yet we can not make the past better we can only strive to improve the future. I look to the Cupertino Council members to act to protect the residents of Cupertino and the surrounding communities. Please file an amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit. Please take the next step to helping make Cupertino not only a technological haven but also a safer place to live and raise children. Sincerely, Marylin McCarthy 10159 Cass Place Cupertino, CA 95014 M4(@earthlink.net 1 Karen B. Guerin From: fei kao[feikao3 @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 12:40 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Please file an amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant(Lehigh) Dear City Council members, Few days ago, Los Alto City Council unanimously approved to join Town of Los Altos Hills and Midpeninsula Regional Space District(MROSD) to file an amicus brief to support Bay Area for Clean Environment's (BACE's) lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant(Lehigh). We are long term residents living in this area, through the years Lehigh continuously violating the regulations, now it is the time to stop. We would appreciate if you can represent us for our best interest to vote. Please follow Los Altos Hills and MROSD to support filing an amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant(Lehigh). Thanks. Fei Yi Kao 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Barbara Kyser[bjkyser @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 1:14 PM To: City Council Subject: Amicus Brief I encourage the Mt. View City Council to join the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District and the Town of Los Altos and Los Altos Hills in filing an Amicus Brief to support Bay Area for Clean Environment's (BACE's) vested rights lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh. I live in Woodland Acres and quite close to the Lehigh plant and there is a constant stream of trucks going in and out of the plant. I do not want further expansion and know that Lehigh has been a significant polluter in our area. If they want to continue to operate so close to residents they need to be held accountable for any pollution they create and should shrink their operations, not expand them. The County Supervisor's decision was poor and should be overturned. Please consider those who live in Los Altos and join the Amicus Brief. Barbara Kyser 558 Deodara Drive Los Altos 650/960-0138 1 Oelucchi Hawn. -16-2113 i9certified public accountants W.2� 2 . September 17,2013 Mr.Tim Brand Bay Area for Clean Environment 2310 Homestead Road,Suite C1#224 Los Altos,Ca. 94024 RE:Tax Status Dear Tim, You had requested from me an update regarding the status of Bay Area For Clean Environment(BACE)in regards to pending issues with the State of California(FTB)and Secretary of State(SOS). Earlier in the year it came to our attention that BACE had been suspended by the FTB and SOS and that several tax and other filings with the state were either delinquent or had not been executed. In July,we had prepared the necessary documents requested by the FTB and SOS of which you filed. Unfortunately,the FTB and SOS indicated that the paperwork could take up to 90 days to process. Today we spoke with our contact at the FTB and she indicated that the organizations exemption with the state would be processed. We have attached a copy of the exemption letter. In addition,she reviewed the account and said that all of the necessary filings and fees were satisfied and that she would file the reviver request today and forward it to the SOS. She said that it could take up to 2 days for the SOS to process and lift the suspension. IF you should have any questions, please let me know. Thanks, Wa a J. Dippel Certified Public Accountant 333 W.Santa Clara 5t.Ste.750 1 San lose,CA 95113 1 Main:(408)286.2200 1 Fax: (408)963.0329 1 www.delucchlbawn.com SEP/17/2013/TUE 12:49 PM FAX No. P. 001 ry t1,, t;of California nchise'Fax Board PO Box 1286 Rancho Cordova CA 95741-1286 sAY AREA FOR CLEAN ENVIRONMENT,INC. Date: 09.17.13 ATTN: RICHARD ADLER Case: 26560519398701896 2310 HOMESTEAD RD STE C-1 224 Case Unit: 26560519398702103 LOS ALTOS CA 94024 In reply refer to:760:MLO:F120 Regarding :Tax-Exempt Status -- Organization's Name :Bay Area For Clean Environment,Inc. CCN :3337953 Purpose :Charitable R&TC§ :23701d Form of Organization :Affirmation Incorporated Accounting Period Ending : 12/31 Tax-Exempt Status Effective :12/03/2010 Exempt Acknowledgement Letter We have received your federal determination letter that shows tax exemption under Internal Revenue Code(IRC)Section @)601(c)(3). Under California law,Revenue and Taxation Code(R&TC) §23701d(c)(1) provides that an organization is exempt from taxes imposed under Part 11 upon submission of the federal determination letter approvingthe organization's tax-exempt status. Generally,the effective date of an organization's California tax-exempt status is the same date as the federal tax-exempt status under IRC§501(c)(3). To retain tax-exempt status,the organization must be organized and operating for nonprofit purposes within the provisions of the above R&T('.section.An inactive organization is not entitled to tax-exempt status. In order for us to determine any effect on the tax.-exempt status,the organization must immediately report to us any change in: • Operation • Character • Purpose • Name • Address For filing requirements,get Pub. 1068, Exempt()rganizations-Filing Requirements and Filing Fees. Go to ftb.ca.gov and search for 1068. FTB 9944 PASS(REV 03-2013) Exempt Applicarion\Correspondence\LTR 001-FAL SEP/17/2013/TUE 12: 49 PM FAX No. P. 002 Page 2 of 2 This exemption Is for state franchise or income tax purposes only. For information regarding sales tax exemption,contact the State Board of Equalization at 800.400.7115,or go to their website at boe.ca.gay. Monalisa Ornelas Telephone:916.845.417J. Fax:916.843.5884 M 9944 PASS(REV 03 2013) Exempt Application\Cormpondenee\LTR 001,-EAL 4- 17- l3 S-f- -A.2� NIELSEN MERKSAMER 2350 Kerner Boulevard, Suite 250 PARRINELLO GROSS & LEONI LLT' San Rafael, California 94901 t: 415.389.6800 t: 41 5.388.6874 September 16, 2013 Carol A. Korade Email: carolk(&cup ertino.org City Attorney City of Cupertino � � �� U 10300 Torre Avenue D Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 SEP ] % 12`' .3 Re: Conflict of Interest Dear Ms. Korade: CUPERTINO CITY CLERK As counsel specializing in government ethics laws, we write regarding a conflict of interest that we believe requires your immediate attention. We have been retained by Lehigh Hansen in regard to a request for the City of Cupertino to commit public funds to support a private lawsuit associated with an organization founded by a councilmember. We understand that the Cupertino City Council, at its meeting on September 17, 2013, intends to take action on a possible decision to commit the City of Cupertino to file an amicus brief on behalf of an entity called Bay Area for Clean Environment ("BACE") in BACE's pending litigation against Lehigh Hanson. It is our opinion that this proposed action exposes the City and its public officials to potential legal liability. Councilmember Chang, as a founder and CEO of BACE, has potential disqualifying financial interests in the proposed governmental decision. To our knowledge, however, he has not disclosed whether he has a disqualifying interest on the public record. Other councilmembers associated with BACE may face separate conflicts of interest. Moreover, BACE's legal status as a tax exempt organization has been revoked by the Internal Revenue Service for its failure to file tax returns for the last three consecutive years. According to public records from the California Secretary of State, BACE's legal status in California is also "Suspended." These facts raise serious questions about BACE's ability to lawfully litigate in this state and whether, or to what extent, the City can permissibly involve itself in the litigation. The potential violations of law here are serious and should therefore be carefully investigated. We respectfully request that you fully consider Sacramento Office 1.415 1.Street, Snite 1200 1 Sacramento,California 9)814 t: 916.446.6752 1 f: 916.446.6106 1 www.mngovlaw.com Carol Korade September 16, 2013 Page 2 of 7 controlling conflict of interest laws, as well as the potential adverse repercussions for the City, before committing public funds to a private agenda that could undermine transparent and fair government. Violation of Government Code § logo Government Code section logo prohibits "self-dealing" in government contracts by making it unlawful for a public official to be financially interested in a contract in both the official's public and private capacities. (See, e.g., Lexin u. Superior (:ourt(2010) 47 Cal-4th 1050, 1073.) The purpose of section logo is to make certain that public officials do not subject the public to divided loyalties: [E]very public officer [must] be guided solely by the public interest, rather than by personal interest, when dealing with contracts in an official capacity. Resulting in a substantial forfeiture, this remedy provides public officials with a strong incentive to avoid conflict-of-interest situations scrupulously. (Thomson u. Call (1985) 38 Cal-3d 633, 650.) Given the importance of this law, a contract made in violation of section logo is void regardless of the subjective fairness of the contract, the absence of actual fraud or dishonesty in the process, or even where the official attempts to recuse himself from the process. (Id. at p. 649; see also People v. Gnass (2002) lol Cal.ApP.4th 1271, 1298 ["the certainty of financial gain is not necessary to create a conflict of interest . . . The government's right to the absolute, undivided allegiance of a public officer is diminished as effectively where the officer acts with a hope of personal financial gain as where he acts with certainty" (internal quotation marks/citations omitted)].) Further, willful violations of section logo are punishable by fines or imprisonment in state prison. (Gov. Code § 1097.) Courts and the California Attorney General have rejected claims that contracts or benefits provided to nonprofit organizations are not subject to section logo. (See, e.g., People v. Honig (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 289, 319; 85 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 176 (2002); 89 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 258 (2006).) Councilmember Chang, as a founder and CEO of BACE, has divided loyalties to his organization on the one hand (which is involved in costly litigation and seeks assistance), and the people of the City of Cupertino on Carol Korade September 16, 2013 Page 3 of 7 the other. Other councilmembers associated with BACE will face similar divided loyalties. Through verified pleadings and declarations filed in its pending litigation, BACE has informed the court that the result of the lawsuit will have a direct,personal, and financial effect on its members. This necessarily includes Councilmember Chang, as well as any other councilmember affiliated with BACE. Councilmember Chang is a member of the BACE board of directors, is listed as CEO on filings with the Secretary of State, and has taken an active role in promoting the litigation. .AJthough Government Code section 1091.5, subdivision (a)(7), provides that a public official is deemed not to have a disqualifying interest when the public official is an unsalaried member of a nonprofit corporation, there are several complicating factors here. First, for this exception to apply the official must disclose his interest in the nonprofit to the City Council at the time the contract is first considered and it must be noted in its official records. We understand that Councilmember Chang previously seconded a motion involving the placement of the matter on the City Council agenda, and failed to disclose his interest. (See People u. Sobel (1974). 40 Cal.ApP.3d 1046, 1052 [violation present even where official does not participate personally in the execution of the questioned contract if:he had the opportunity to, and did, influence the process directly or indirectly].) There may be other actions taken out of the public eye that could further undermine the ability of the City to commit funds for this purpose. Second, the Statement of Economic Interest (Form 700) on file with the City from Councilmember Chang does not include a schedule of potentially disqualifying financial interests. This missing "Schedule U is a vital part of Form 700, as it provides the public with required information regarding a councilmember's "sources of income." We note that BACE's website states that Councilmember Chang and his wife "started a small business [in Cupertino] that they still operate today," and that Mr. Chang holds a California real estate license, yet neither of these financial interests is disclosed on Form 700. Additionally, given BACE's failure to disclose its financial information to the Internal Revenue Service and the public—a basic obligation of a nonprofit—it is impossible for the public to know Carol Korade September 16, 2013 Page 4 of 7 whether, and to what extent, Councilmember Chang is compensated by BALE. Third, given BACE's loss of tax exempt status from the IRS and its current "Suspended" status in California, it is doubtful whether any exception related to a "bona fide" nonprofit can even apply here. Violations of the Political Reform Act The California Political Reform Act of 1974 prohibits public officials from participating in government decisions in which they have a financial interest. (Gov. Code §§ 87100-87500.) F:ven if a contract is permissible under section logo, a councilmember's participation in that governmental decision may be prohibited by the Political Reform Act. (See, e.g., Lexin, supra, 47 Cal-4th at pp. 1090-1092.) In the words of the Political Reform Act, elected officials "should perform their duties in an impartial manner, free from bias caused by their own financial interests or the financial interests of those who have supported them." (Gov. Code § 8001(b).) Councilmember Chang appears to have at least three potentially disqualifying conflicts of interest: (1) BACE may be a "source of income"to Councilmember Chang in an amount of $500 or more over the past 12 months; (2) we understand that he owns; personal real property in the neighborhood that, according to representations made in the BACE litigation, will be financially impacted by that litigation; and (3) due to Councilmember Chang's work as a Cupertino-based real estate broker, other income and compensation may be closely tied to properties at issue in the lawsuit. The Fair Political Practices Commission has, in the context of an advisory letter to another South Bay city councilmember, made clear that public officials cannot simultaneously wear two hats as a disinterested public servant and a paid advocate for a private nonprofit entity which has taken a position on matters before the council. Because Councilmember Chang has failed to file the requisite information on his Form 70o, but has, through verified pleadings in the BACE lawsuit, recognized a personal financial interest in the litigation, we request that the City Attorney fully investigate and report to the public regarding a potential conflict of interest resulting from Councilmember Chang's sources of income, including from BACE. Similarly, with respect Carol Korade September 16, 2013 Page 5 of 7 to Councilmember Chang's real property interests, we request a complete analysis as to whether Councilmember Chang has a disqualifying conflict of interest. We understand that conflict of interest situations such as these often merit independent review through a request for advice from the Fair Political Practices Commission. Absent such a request, councilmembers may be subject to adverse advisory, warning, or enforcement decisions. Legal Status of BACE In general, a "corporation may not prosecute or defend an action, nor appeal from an adverse judgment in an action while its corporate rights are suspended for failure to pay taxes." (Reed v. Norman (1957) 48 Cal.2d 338, 343; see also, e.g., Rev. &Tax. Code § 19719 [fines and penalties for persons who attempt to exercise the powers, rights, and privileges of a corporation that has been suspended].) It is not known whether BACE has taken, plans to take, or even can potentially take any action to attempt to revive its legal status in California. Before joining what may be an improper lawsuit, the City must investigate and carefully consider the possible implications of intervening in a case on behalf of an entity that appears to lack legal standing to appeal. The revocation of BACE's tax exempt status should be of particular concern, as the entity continues to solicit contributions. Through a side note on its website, BACE is stating that it "has filed as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit public charitable organization," and that "[w]hen the filings are approved then your donation will be recognized as a charitable contribution..." Yet, according to public documents, BACE is not awaiting approval for exempt status. To the contrary, it has failed to file its informational returns, leading to its loss of exempt status. Given the City is considering whether to spend taxpayer dollars to support this entity in pending litigation, transparency and disclosure must be required. Summary of Actions Required Based on the foregoing, we respectfully request that you immediately take the following actions: 1. Fully investigate—and disclose to the public—potential conflict of interest violations, including whether Government Code section logo prohibits the City from committing public funds to support BACE's legal proceedings and whether there are Carol Korade September 16, 2013 Page 6 of 7 conflicts under the Political Reform Act given the direct, personal financial effects of the decision on.councilmembers; 2. Ensure that Councilmember Chang immediately files a complete, accurate, and public Statement of Economic Interest (Form 700), as required by law, including but not limited to "Schedule C" in order to disclose all of his sources of income, whether from BALE or any other source; and 3. Fully investigate and determine whether the City can permissibly involve itself in the BACE litigation given BACE's "Suspended" status in California and the IRS action to revoke BACE's tax exempt status for failing to file tax returns. We trust that the City will postpone any and all action regarding a possible decision by the City Council to commit public funds to support BACE in BACE's pending litigation until the issues raised in this letter have been fully investigated by your office and the results of that investigation have been disclosed to the public. We appreciate your commitment to protecting the public through strict adherence to all applicable conflict of interest and governmental ethics laws. Sincerely, Jason D. Kaune Sean P. Welch cc: (via email) Mayor Orrin Mahoney Vice Mayor Gilbert Wong Councilmember Mark Santoro Councilmember Rod Sinks Councilmember Barry Chan David Brandt, City Manager Carol Korade September 16, 2013 Page 7 of 7 cc: (via Federal Express) Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Enclosures: (1) BACE Suspended Status, CA Secretary of State (2) BACE Status Inquiry Result, CA Secretary of State (3) BACE Tax Exempt Revocation, IRS (4) Chang Form 700 (5) BACE Solicitation (6) BACE Website re Directors 9/1,5/13 Business Search-Business Entities-Business Programs . m1L'SS Bush, *1E4i rtt t't )_ Business Entity Detaill Online ervices -File$t ai of � ,is Data is updated to the California iusiness Search on Wednesday and Saturday mornings. Results Ipformatio►t fq,r. reflect work processed through Friday, September 13, 2013. Please refer to Processing Times for Corporations - Business:Sea,rch ` the received dates of filings currently being processed.The data provided is not a complete or -P-roeessing' Imes certified record of an entity. ->Disclosure Search Main Page BAY AREA FOR CLEAN ENVIRONMENT, INC. ft ft Service,Options C3337953 Name Availability 12/03/2010 Forms, Samples&Fees SUSPENDED Statements of Information (annual/biennial reports) 3urisdicti i CALIFORNIA Filing Tips 10495 S DE ANZA BLVD STE A Information Requests (certificates, copies& CUPERTINOsCA 95014 status reports) Service of Process RICHARD ADLER FAgs 10778 JUNIPER CT Contact Information CUPERTINO CA 95014 Resources Business Resources * Indicates the information is not contained in the California Secretary of State's database. -Tax Information Starting A Business • If the status of the corporation is "Surrender," the agent for service of process is automatically Customer Alerts revoked. Please refer to California Corporations Code section 211.4 for information relating to Business Identity Theft service upon corporations that have surrendered. Misleading Business Solicitations For information on checking c r reserving a name, refer to Name Availability. ....................................................... • For information on ordering certificates, copies of documents and/or status reports or to request a more extensive search, refer to Information Requests. • For help with searching an entity name,refer to Search Tips. • For descriptions of the variocS fields and status types, refer to Field._Descriptions_and Status Definitions. .......... Modify Search New Search Printer Friendly Back to.Search Results Privacy Statement I Free Document Readers Copyright©2013 California Secret<ry of State ke-pler.sos.ca.gov 1/1 SSCPUB8 STATUS INQUIRY PAGE 1 04/04/13 CPOISTA3 10.27:13 .4 NAME BAY AREA FOR CLEAN ENVIRONMENT, INC. CORP NO C3337953 INC. DATE 12/03/2010 STATUS FTB SUSP 04/02/2013 DOMESTIC NONPROFIT CLASS PB NO OF PAGES 02 ST/CTRY STMT OF INFO (SI) RECENT SI C DATE 03/07/11 NO 0041416 PRIOR COMPLETE SI DATE NO PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE ADDR 10495 S DE ANZA BLVD STE A CITY/ST/CNTRY CUPERTINO CALIFORNIA ZIP 95014 CALIFORNIA ADDRESS CITY CA MAILING ADDRESS 10495 S DE ANZA BLVD STE A CITY/ST/CNTRY CUPERTINO CALIFORNIA ZIP 95014 CEO NAME BARRY CHANG ADDRESS 11450 CANYON VIEW CIR CITY/ST/CNTRY CUPERTINO CA ZIP 95014 AGENT NAME RICHARD ADLER ADDRESS 10778 JUNIPER CT CITY CUPERTINO CA 95014 TYPE OF BUSINESS ENTR=CONTINUE PF2=HISTORY PF3=BACK TO WORKSCREEN PF10=MAIN MENU Secretary of State Business Programs Division 6 rl Business Entities-Records, P.O. Box 944260, Sacramento, CA 94244-2600 Corporation Status Inquiry In response to your request, enclosed is a screen print of the entity record. Please see below for an explanation of the information contained in a screen print and see the reverse side of this notice for a sample of a screen print. 1. NAME—The domestic entity or foreign entity name as formed, qualified or converted in California. 2. CORP NO—The identification number assigned by the California Secretary of State. 3. INC. DATE — The date of formation of the domestic (California) entity or the date of qualification of the foreign (not California) entity doing business in California. If the date is blank, refer to field 13 for the date another business entity converted to this domestic entity. 4. STATUS—The status code for the entity,described as follows: • ACTIVE—The domestic entity is authorized to carry out its business activities in California or the foreign entity is authorized to transact intrastate business in California • FTB SUSP (domestic entity only) — The domestic entity's powers, rights and privileges were suspended in California by the California Franchise Tax Board for failure to meet franchise tax requirements(e.g.,failure to file a return,pay taxes,etc.). • FTB FRFT (foreign entity only)—The foreign entity's powers, rights and privileges were forfeited in California by the California Franchise Tax Board for failure to meet franchise tax requirements(e.g.,failure to file a return,pay taxes,etc.). • SOS SUSP (domestic entity only) — The domestic entity's powers, rights and privileges were suspended in California by the California Secretary of State for failure to file the required Statement of Information. • SOS FRFT (foreign entity only)—The foreign entity's powers, rights and privileges were forfeited in California by the California Secretary of State for failure to file the required Statement of Information. • SOSIFTB SP (domestic entity only) —The domestic entity's powers, rights and privileges were suspended in California by the California Secretary of State for failure to file the required Statement of Information and by the California Franchise Tax Board for failure to meet franchise tax requirements(e.g.,failure to file a return,pay taxes,etc.). • SOSiFTB FT(foreign entity only)—The foreign entity's powers, rights and privileges were forfeited in California by the California Secretary of State for failure to file the required Statement of Information and by the California Franchise Tax Board for failure to meet franchise tax requirements(e.g.,failure to file a return,pay :axes,etc.). • DISSOLVED(domestic entity only)—The domestic entity's powe-s, rights and privileges have ceased in California. • MERGED OUT—The entity merged into another domestic or foreign business entity. • CONV OUT—The entity converted to another type of business entity. • INACTIVE—In most cases,the entity converted to a federal entity or consolidated with another entity to form a single entity. • TERM EXP(domestic entity only)—The domestic entity's term of existence expired. • SURRENDER(foreign entity only)—The foreign entity is no longer authorized to transact intrastate business in California. • CANCELLED —The domestic entity's formation filing or the foreign entity's qualification filing was cancelled by the California Secretary of State because the payment for the filing fee was not honored by the financial institution. 5. The type of entity (domestic stock corporation, domestic nonprofit corporation, foreign stock corporation, foreign nonprofit corporation or foreign association). 6. CLASS (domestic nonprofit corporation only) — The statutory classification assigned to a domestic nonprofit corporation based on the corporation documents of record. PB= Public Benefit, MU=Mutual Benefit, RE=Religious, SL=Corporation Sole, OC = Cooperative, AG = Agricultural cooperative and CR = credit union. If the classification code is UN, the corporation has not been classified by the California Secretary of State. 7. CID (domestic nonprofit corporation only) will display if the corporation is formed to manage a common interest development. 8. NO OF PAGES—The number of pages of the domestic entity's formation documents or of the foreign entity's qualification documents filed with the California Secretary of State. If"00w is displayed,the information is not contained in the database. CORP STATUS INQ(Rev.05/2012) Page 1 of 2 California Secretary of State www.sos,ca.govlbusiness/be (916)657-5448 9. ST/CTRY—The state or place under which laws the entity was organized. 10. RECENT SI — The type, file date and document number for the most recently filed Statement of Information. "C" is a complete Statement of Information and "N" is a no change Statement of Information. A Statement of Information is a document filed with the California Secretary of State containing information such as entity addresses, names and addresses of officers and/or directors, and the name and address of the agent for service of process. 11. PRIOR COMPLETE SI—The type, file date and document number for the complete Statement of Information that was filed before the RECENT SI. 12. CID STATEMENT — The file date and document number for the most recently filed Statement by Common Interest Development Association. 13. CONVERSION DATE—The date another business entity converted to this domestic entity. 14, PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE ADDR—The address of the entity's principal executive office. 15. CALIFORNIA ADDRESS—The address of the entity's office in California. 16. MAILING ADDRESS—The mailing address of the entity. 17. CEO—The name and address of the entity's chief executive officer. 18. AGENT—The name and address of the entity's designated agent for service of process. The agent can be an individual or a corporation. If a foreign entity's status is SURRENDER,the agent for service of process is automatically revoked. 19. TYPE OF BUSINESS—The type of business in which the entity is engaged. Example Screen Print STATUS INQUIRY NAME 3❑ CORP NO O INC. DATE E] S TUSa I� 111 j LA55�� 7 �--I NO OF PAGES L S CT RYTI STMT OF INFO (5I) RECt NT SI 1O GATE NO PRIOR COMPLETE SI 11 DATE NO CID STATEMENT 12 DATE NO C WE11,510I DATE 13 PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE ADDR U CITY/STICNTAY Z I P CALIFORNIA ADDRESS 15 CITY CA MAILING ADDRESS El CITY/ST/CNTRY �__ ZIP CEO NAME ADOftESS 1T CITY/ST/CNTRY ZIP AGENT NAME ADDRESS 18 CITY CA TYPE OF BUSINES S ENTR.CUNTINUE PF2-1115 TORY PF3-BACK TO NORKSCREEN PFIe=MAIN MENU Blank spaces indicate the information has not been entered onto the system or is not contained in the entity's record. A screen print of the entity's history is included if the entity is both California Secretary of State and California Franchise Tax Board suspended or forfeited to provide both suspension dates. Instructions and fees for ordering certificates and copies of filed documents for a business entity are available on the California Secretary of State's website at www.sos.ca.gov/business/be. Questions about relief from a California Secretary of State suspension or forfeiture should be directed to the Secretary of State, Statement of Information Unit, P.O. Box 944230, Sacramento CA 94244-2300, (916) 657-5448. Questions about relief from a California Franchise Tax Board suspension or forfeiture should be directed to the Franchise Tax Board,Attention: Revivor Unit, P.O.Box 942857, Sacramento CA 94257-2021,(800)852-5711. CORP STATUS INQ(Rev.05/2012) Page 2 or 2 California Secretary of State www.sos.ca.gov/business/be (916)657-5448 Exempt Organizations Select Check Page 1 of 1 Exempt Organizations Select Check Exempt Organizations Select Check Home Automatic Revocation of Exemption Information The federal tax exemption of this organization was automatically revoked for its failure to file a form 990-series return or notice for three consecutive years.The information listed below for each organization is historical;it is current as of the organization's effective date of automalic revocation.The information is not necessarily current as of today's date.Nor does this automatic revocation necessarily reflect the organization's tax-exempt or non-exempt status.The organization may have applied to the IRS for recognition of exemption and been recognized by the IRS as tax-exempt after its effective date of automatic revocation.To check whether an organization is currently recognized by the IRS as tax-exempt,call Customer Account Services at(877)829-5500(toll-free number). Revocation Date(effective date on which organization's tax exemption was automatically revoked): 15-May-2013 Employer Identification Number(EIN): 27-4379516 Legal Name: NO TOXIC AIR INC Doing Business As: Mailing Address: 10495 S DE ANZA BLVD STE A CUPERTINO,CA 95014-3034 United States Exemption Type: 501(c)(3) Revocation Posting Date(date on which IRS posted notice of automatic revocation on IRS.gov): 12-Aug-2013 Search Results Retu n to Search PSG http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/displayRevocation.do'?dispatchMethod=displayRevokelnfo&re... 9/16/2013 GUIDESTAR Generated on September 16,2013 at 8,25 PM EDT Nonprofit Report NO TOXIC AIR INC Also Known As: 10495 S De Anza Blvd Ste A Cupertino,CA 95014 This organization's exempt status was automatically revoked by the IRS for failure to file a Form 990,990-EZ,990-N,or 990-PF for 3 consecutive years.Further investigation and due diligence are warranted. ... ............. -........ ........._-.. ......-._..... ................ _........ ............._. ....... ..._........ .._....... ............__...-i Contact Information i NO TOXIC AIR INC Also Known As Physical Address: 10495 S De Anza Blvd Ste A Cupertino,CA 95014 Contact: i I Formerly Known As: Category(NTEE): C Environmental Quality Protection,Beautification/C20(Pollution Abatement and Control Services) I Year Founded: 2011 Mission Statement ........... ............ -...... ............... ........-... ___ ..._....... ............. -....... ................ ...__ _ _.._... ...........--....._.I C.._..._.. ........ -_.......... ............. Impact Summary This organization has not provided an impact summary. , __.._ -........ ......... .. .___. ._._ ___...- ....-. _ ...._.. ......._ ................ ............ ._........ .__........., Financial Data • Data •.ifil ing IRS Form 990 Data i To see financial data from prior years,subscribe to GuideStar Premium. _...... .._._.. .......... .......... . ........ .............. ......- .............-.. __....... ._... ..... ......_.......- Revenue I Contributions Program Services -- Membership Dues -- Special Events Other Total Revenue - t Expenses Program Services Administrative Costs -- Payments To Affiliates --. Total Expenses i Assets&Liabilities Total Assets f Total Liabilities - i I Net Assets or Fund Balance at the end of year Balance Sheet I j ! Subscribe to GuideStar Premium to view this information,if available i ....... ._.__............... _...... . ..............._- ._.._............. ..-....._. _ .._....... '_...........................................-............. ..__.__. Forms 1 Received from the IRS I Data Not Available Form's r I rovided by the Nonprofit Financial Statements I Subscribe to 6uide5tar Premium to view this information,if available_ _... ..._... ....._........ .._..... ........_... ........... .__. ...._.._....... ..__.. ........ ...... .._.......__. __... Reports Annual Formation Documents Subscrbe to GuideStar Premium to view this information,if available. Program: i Budget: -- Category: Population Served: i r Program Description: Program Long-Term Success: Program Short-Term Success: Program Success Monitored by: t Program Success Examples: Chief Executive Board Chair Board of Directors i j 3 Officers Subscribe to GuideStar Premium to view this information,if available. Highest Paid Employees&Their Compensation Subscribe to GuideStar Premium to view this information,if available. p � WUW Date Received CALIFORNIA FORM 00 STATEMENT OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS otr.c,.,t Use onjy POLITICAL FAIR APR 16 2013 I— A PUBLIC DOCUMENT COVER PAGE Please type or print in ink. ERK NAME OF FILER (LAST) (FIRST) C NAB C 29A-;C F– 1. Office, Agency, or Court Agency Name Cfti P6 ke r-'r iJ 0 Cry CD-"A C;r� L Division, Board, Department, District, if applicable Your Position C,r-1 y CV.,W LPL.146-A/s Ea I. If filing for multiple positions, list below or on an attachment. Agency: Position: 2. Jurisdiction of Office (Check at least one box) (]State ❑Judge or Court Commissioner(Statewide Jurisdiction) ❑Multi-County ❑County of (�City of { ��r��6 ❑Other 3. J pe of Statement (Check at least one box) Annual: The period covered is January 1, 2012, through ❑ Leaving Office: Date Left�J—J December 31, 2012. (Check one) -or. The period covered is through O The period covered is January 1,2012,through the date of December 31, 2012, leaving office, ❑ Assuming Office: Date assumed O The period covered is_—J—J through the date of leaving office, ❑ Candidate: Election year and office sought, if different than Pali 1: 4. Schedule Summary Check applicable schedules or "None." ► Total number of pages including this cover page: _ y ❑ Schedule A-1 • Investments-schedule attached ❑ Schedule C- Income, Loans, &Business Positions-schedule attached ❑ Schedule A-2• Investments-schedule attached ❑ Schedule D•Income- Gifts-schedule attached Schedule B - Real Property-schedule attached ❑ Schedule E•Income- GiRs- Travel Payments-schedule attached .or- [7 None- No reportable interests on any schedule 5. Verification MAILING ADDRESS STREET CITY STATE ZIP CODE (Ousiness or Agency Address Recommended Public Document) 1444 AA oA) \IV Lt csRe)fry � l'c Z�'�,JZ7 ��D' DAYTIME TELEPHONE NUMBER E- IL ADDRESS(OPTIONAL)' ( D Pr) C rU7A.ltCx L7 60 GrXIAzl . e.-zki I have iuJsed all reasonable diligence in preparing this statement. I have reviewed this statement and to the best of my knowledge the information contained herein and In any attached schedules is true and complete. I acknowledge this is a public document. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date Signed `�6 Signature ' /f", `�-" - (month day,year) (F a� iginaOy signed slalwnen!wNh�!e 1>g o(Oclal) PPC Form 700(2012/2013) FPPC A vice Email:advice@fppc.ca.gov FPPC Toll-Free Helpline:8661275-3772 www,fppc.ca.gov I CALIFORNIA SCHEDULE B rA1R POLnICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION Interests in Real Property Name (including Rental Income) G' a A 6 ► ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER OR STREET ADDRESS ► ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER OR STREET ADDRESS CITY CITY FAIR MARKET VALUE IF APPLICABLE, LIST DATE FAIR MARKET VALUE IF APPLICABLE, LIST DATE: ❑ $2,000-$10,000 ❑ $2,000- $10,000 ❑ $10,001 $100,000 --f-J 1 Z �� 12 ❑ $10,001 -$100,000 12 ❑ $100,001 -$1,000,000 ACQUIRED DISPOSED ❑ $100,001 • $1,000,000 ACQUIRED DISPOSED ❑f Over $1,000,000 ❑ Over$1,000,000 7NATURE OF INTEREST NATURE OF INTEREST I �Ownership/Deed of Trust ❑ Easement ❑ Ownership/Deed of Trust ❑ Easement ❑ Leasehold ❑ ❑ Leasehold ❑ Yfs.remaining Other Yrs,remaining Other IF RENTAL PROPERTY, GROSS INCOME RECEIVED IF RENTAL PROPERTY,GROSS INCOME RECEIVED ❑ $0- $499 ❑ $500- $1,000 ❑ $1,001 - 310,000 ❑SO-$499 ❑ 5500- $1,000 ❑ 51,001 $10,000 ❑ $10,001 $100,000 ❑ OVER 5100.000 ❑ $10,001 -s100,000 ❑ OVER $100,000 SOURCES OF RENTAL INCOME: If you own a 10% or greater SOURCES OF RENTAL INCOME: If you own a 10% or greater interest, list the name of each tenant that is a single source of interest, list the name of each tenant that is a single source of income of $10,000 or more. income of$10,000 or more. ❑ None ❑ Nine * You are not required to report loans from commercial lending institutions made in the lender's regular course of business on terms available to members of the public without regard to your official status, Personal loans and loans received not in a lender's regular course of business must be disclosed as follows: NAME OF LENDER' NAME OF LENDER' ADDRESS (Business Address Acceptable) ADDRESS (Business Address Acceptable) BUSINESS ACTIVITY, IF ANY, OF LENDER BUSINESS ACTIVITY. IF ANY, OF LENDER INTEREST RATE TERM (Months/Years) INTEREST RATE TERM (Months/Years) ❑ None % ❑ None HIGHEST BALANCE DURING REPORTING PERIOD HIGHEST BALANCE DURING REPORTING PERIOD ❑ $500 -$1,000 ❑ $1,001 -$10,000 ❑ $500. 51,000 ❑ $1,001 - $10,000 ❑ $10,001 -5100,000 ❑ OVER$100,000 ❑ $10,001 .$100,000 ❑ OVER $100,000 ❑ Guarantor, it applicable ❑ Guarantor, if applicable Comments: FPPC Form 700(2012/2013)Sch. B FPPC Advice Email:advice(�fppc.ca.gov FPPC Toll-Free Helpline:86612753772 www,fppc,ca.gov l oud501 https://secure.cloud501.corn/donates/donor/bace 46 Bay Area opz-� (http:/lwww.bavareacleanf nvironment.orgl) Bay Area for Clean Environment,Inc.(formerly No Toxic Air, Inc.): Through your contributions,we can continue to work to keep the Bay Area environment clean.Thank you for your support in these crucial efforts. Please enter your information below Fields marked with are required data fields. —Donor Information— -- —° �- 1. Emaill 2. First name' --- 3. Last name' 4. Address 5. City 6. Zip 7. State Alabama 8. Home phorte( 9. Cell phone— Join our E-Mail Groups: 10. Imported Contacts-----_--_.—.._..___.__—. 1 F Imported Contacts from spreadsheet i__.....- ____ ......_ ___ ...._....._. __ -. ........_._ __. ..._.._ .. 11. r Click to accept our Terms and Conditions(/donates/terms and conditions/bace &Privacy Policy(Won ate s/privacvlbace)* i■ �� 11� of � � 1 (#) (u) Social Login Complete the form using your Social Network Login (https:/Icloud5Ol.rpxnow.com/openid/v2lsignin?token u rl=https%3A%2F%2Fsec ure cloud501.com%2Fdonors%2Frpx token%3Fcampaign id%3D186) ...... _._. Payment Methods l VISA ' wsc,nx 1 of2 9/16/2013 2:01 PM Cl oud5 01 https://secure.c I oud501.conv donates/donor/bace Campaign Goal(Ichartsl campaigngoall xd76eb7a8331a7626abbeb5256289861e4a15260c) 501< � 4 r �collected Donations -. Campaign Goal Important Notice about Bay Area for Clean Environment's Tax Exempt Status Bay Area for Clean Environment,Inc.has filed as a 501(c)(3)nonprofit public charitable organization.When the filings are approved then your donation will be recognized as a charitable contribution and will be eligible as a Federal income tax deduction retroactively as defined by current IRS regulations. We expect the filings to be approved.However,we cannot guarantee when the ti ings will be completely approved. See what donations we have received so far Our real-time donation distribution is right here Ilchartsl donation_distlxc7aa61fad'r 4f485a572906264f6cd26fd96c3e16) G�}/flttlY.{pElt. cro VERIFkD&5EClJKD IERI(Y SFCRk IiY L�1c4h .$ 'TE*f �� 3 `� � N` 4 7 #`3£�y �ssF R« L�'h$.+' x5. k' •§ " 4 "R +� k c -.s �d 4,°�.. ;4� �1��k_ -•^b W+_�,. k 48a"p�, 31w�z 't�°' s`�' ,y a..,,.g...: ",x.`. �b' ✓{ s,,;d ��y `.''"�� 5 T ;�" 3 9f A -R'4�1.' { T � ��w ^t { M� 2 of 2 9/16/2013 2:01 PM 9/16/13 About Our Organization re a ay At for Clean Envirortment' a z About Bay Area for Clean Environment, Inc. About Bay Area for Clean Environment: Bay Area for Clean Environment (formerly No Toxic Air) is a non-profit organization formed in January 2010 by a group of residents in the Silicon Valley to educate residents of Silicon Valley Bay Area about the health and environmental dangers of mercury and other forms of pollution and to work to reduce the impact of major sources of pollution in the community, particularly from the neighboring cement plant and quarry. Bay Area for Clean Environment Board of Directors Note: Organizations, affiliations, and titles are listed for identification purposes only. Richard Adler is the president of People &Technology, a research and consulting firm in Silicon Valley. He is also a Research Associate at the Institute for the Future in Palo Alto, CA. He holds a BA from Harvard, an MA from the University of California at Berkeley, and an MBA from the McLaren School of Business at the University of San Francisco. He has lived in the Bay Area for more than 40 years. Tim Brand earned a BSEE from University of Illinois and has lived and in the Bay Area for 31 years working for various high tech companies as an RF engineer. He has expertise in microwave circuit and antenna design with a specialty in RFID and currently works for Savi Technology as a principal engineer.Tim began advocating for the community in 1996 in successfully opposing Kaiser Cement Company's plans to incinerate tires to fuel its kiln. Barry Chang has been a member of the Cupertino City Council since 2009. He ran on a platform of protecting the community's environment and air quality, a promise, which he is now working to fulfill. In 1995, he was elected to the Cupertino School Board and in 2003 was re-elected with the hichest number of votes of any candidate. In addition, he served four years on the Cupertino Public Safety Commission. Esarry has lived in Cupertino since 1985, where he and his wife raised their family and started a small business that they still operate today. Roy Hong, MD, is a plastic surgeon in practice in Palo Alto. He is a graduate of Brown University and Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. He received his plastic surgery training at the Institute of Reconstructive Plastic Surgery at New York University. He also completed a general surgery residency at the University of Washington in Seattle, a surgical research fellowship at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston and a fellowship in microvascular surgery at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. He has served as an overseas volunteer physician in South Korea and in Hanoi, Vietnam. He has lived in the Bay Area for 14 years with his wife and two children. Thorsten von Stein, MD, PhD, is a pharmaceutical physician w-io has served as chief medical officer of three biopharmaceutical companies. He has spent 17 years in drug development and clinical research in various therapeutic areas, leading the clinical development of several marketed pharmaceutical products. With his wife and two daughters, Thorsten has lived in the Bay Area since 1997. Paula Wallis, aka Wallis Alviar, is a former broadcast journalist who has reported on issues and events in the San Francisco Bay Area for more than 15 years. Before retiring to raise a family, she worked as a reporter for KRON-TV, the NBC affiliate in San Francisco, and KPIX-TV, the CBS affiliate also in San Frarcisco. She has lived in the Bay Area for more than 20 years John Bartas is a computer scientist, veteran of 10 high-tech start-ups, and a Cupertino resident for over 20 years. He has has been a volunteer for his children's schools and other Cupertino projects. Professionally he contributed to the standards that define the Internet and developed the first commercially successful software to link a PC to the Internet. He worked on the first Ethernet switch, the original network"Sniffer", and the first voice messaging system. He is currently working on wireless video streaming and is an activist for Network Neutralil:y. _ vmw.notoAcair.org/html/about.html 1/1 CC 9-17-13 Item #22 Kirsten Squarcia From: Rhoda Fry [fryhouse @earthlink.rnat] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 1:44 PM To: City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk Subject: Agenda item #22, please support MROSD and join Los Altos and Los Altos Hills w/Amicus Dear Cupertino City Council Members: Please join MROSD, Los Altos Hills, and Los Altos and vote for Amicus of Complaint regarding Santa Clara County Vested Rights Decision In February 2011, against the advice of its staff, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors granted the Lehigh Southwest quarry non-conforming legal use of approximately 2600 acres. The quarry's neighbor, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, subm tted factual testimony to support the county staff's findings, but the County Board of Supervisors ignored it (our own district Supervisor overtly supported Lehigh Southwest, and the other Supervisors followed). A legal challenge by an environmental organization called BACE (Bay Area Clean Environme:zt) filed a complaint and they need your help in affirming what the county staff had said all along, Lehigh Southwest does not have "vested rights" to all of these 2600 acres. Yes, Lehigh owns the land fair and square, but just as with any land owner, they should be subject to current regulations. Sadly, the consequences of this erroneous decision are severe; the quarry will be permitted to operate without a conditional use permi., which would have otherwise put reasonable zoning regulations on their operations that apply to modern mining companies elsewhere in the State of California such as: - Hours of Operation - Noise levels and times - Light levels and times - Vibration levels - Location of structures that support mining - Location of unsightly mining materials - Notification of neighbors for blasting times One of the most obvious errors made by the politically-motivated decision is where we now see a growing mountain of mining waste from Stevens CreE k Boulevard, known as EMSA. This had been the headquarters of Kaiser Aluminum, a separate publicly-traded company that sold off its last parcel on the hill to the quarry in 1995. Originally, the land was acquired using Government loans earmarked for WWII and war weapons were manufactured there by the Permanente Metals Company. After the war, the company was renamed and they made pressed aluminium products (from airplane wings to household aluminum). Thus the land was never used for mining or accessible for mining until 1995. Here is a quote from County staff: "With respect to the proposed East Materials Storage Area, the County Geologist did not identify any quarrying-related disturbance as of 1948. Moreover, this land was sold to a separate corporation and developed/used intensively for metals manufacturing and related activities until the 1980s. Thus, any legal nonconforming use that may have been established on the proposed EMSA land was abandoned long ago." i CC 9-17-13 Item #22 For years, the County has either willfully neglected or ignored problems with this quarry: - In 1998, a number of toxic buildings were torn down and although permits were obtained, there is not record of inspections. Now we have no idea where the waste from these buildings is. - In 2006, following a landslide from the Quarry into our Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, the County arranged for a land swap between the two parties. It appears there were no fines or punitive damages filed by the County. - Also in 2006, the State Mining and Geology Board considered assuming regulatory oversight of the Permanente Quarry due to the County's inability to regulate it (and others in the County). - Following public pressure, the County issued weak Notices of Violation addressing the mountain of mining waste called EMSA that is clearly visible from Stevens Creek Boulevard and continues to grow. - As early as 2007, MROSD wrote letters to the county asking for better oversight. - In 2011, in order to legitimize this waste mountain retro-actively, the county sought to give away zoning restrictions that would have otherwise been placed on mountain of mining wasted called EMSA. - Also in 2011, the Office of Mine Reclamation, blasted the County for its inability to regulate the mine and threatened the mine with economic sanctions. - In 2012, the Water Boards sent an 18-page missive to the County which the County ignored. In March 2013, the Water Boards considered filing suit, however a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club achieved their goals. It is troubling that so many politicians have been involved in this quarry. Cement company executive Tom Legan was a County Board Supervisor from 1982 - 1989 (and got in trouble with the FPPC and went to court for child molestation). Former cement company employee Barbara Koppel was a Cupertino Council Member for 8 years, served as BAAQMD board member, and ran for County Supervisor in 1996 (and got in trouble with the ethics panel for donations from the cement plant and from Jim Cuneen, a former assemblyperson who has also been and adviser to the plant). Who will take the place of former Councilmember Sandra James when she retires as a Lehigh public affairs person? Please halt the County's threats to our hillsides and send a strong message to the County that we expect and deserve appropriate regulation of this property. Thank You, Rhoda Fry 2 CC 9-17-13 Item #22 ;HKVQ i Ab M j a ,w y r " Karen B. Guerin From: Dave Cherne [dcherne @g mail.corn] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 5:11 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Support for Amicus brief Dear Council Member, I am writing to you to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement's vested rights. Los Altos City Council unanimously approved to join Town of Los Altos Hills and Midpeninsula Regional Space District (MROSD) to file an amicus brief to support Bay Area for Clean Environment's (BACE's) lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant (Lehigh) on September 10, 2013. Within the doctrine of nonconforming use, rules allowing nonconforming use should be narrowly construed because nonconforming use is highly disfavored. The issue in BACE's appeal is that Santa Clara County has outrageously distorted the doctrine of nonconforming use. The County Supervisors overruled its own staff s recommendation and gave much more than what Lehigh had originally requested. Given the fact that Lehigh is the largest polluter of mercury, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides in the Peninsula and South Bay, compounded with Lehigh's long history of violating the Federal Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Labor laws and State Mining laws, it is our duty to stop these violaticns and to protect our residents' health and safety. It has been proven that we can accomplish more to protect public health and the economic engine here in Silicon Valley. More than a year ago, City of Los Altos joined Town of Los Altos Hills and City of Cupertino. We sent a letter to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and asked for more protective rules for cleaner air from the cement industry. With our efforts together, BAAQMD did issue stricter rules for Regulation 9, Rule 13 which went into effect on September 9, 2013. This provides a cleaner air for our residents two years ahead of EPA's new rules. Working together, we can protect our residents' health. Lehigh is very unique, for it is the only cement plant in operation in the United States which is so close to large populous metropolitan area. And it is the only cement plant that next to Silicon Valley, the high tech power engine for our region, our state and our nation. As you know that high tech industry is very competitive. It relies heavily on innovation - which depends on the brain power of highly-educated people. Lehigh's pollution and violation of the laws needs to be reined in to protect the health and brain power of these people. Since Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) will draft the amicus brief, your staff does not need to spend a lot of time to prepare for it. You can set a limit for the cost not to exceed $5,000. When there are more cities joining MROSD, Town of Los Altos Hills and City of Los Altos, the cost can be further reduced. With a relatively small amount of money and rninimum amount of work from City staff, you can show your constituents that you are protecting their health and the economic engine in Silicon Valley. Please file an amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit. Together, we can bring Lehigh into compliance with the laws and protect our residents' health. Sincerely, Dave Cherne 10908 Sycamore Drive 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Shing-Shwang Yao [shing_shwangyao @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 5:24 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro Subject: Amicus to support Bay Area for CIE:an Environment (BACE) Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, CouncilmE:mbers Chang, Santoro, and Sinks, I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. I view the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry as having ongoing problems. This company has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACIE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the 9/5/13 Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." I hope you will join with the Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, Cupertino Resident: Shing-Shwang Yao 21441 Elm Court Cupertino i CL 9-17-13 Karen B. Guerin From: Susan M Ha [suemha1 @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 5:31 PM To: jennieshabel @juno.com Cc: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks Subject: Re: Need to file a Lehigh amicus brief I also agree 100 percent opinions of Jack and Jenny Shabel, and Nadine Grant from their emails. Susan John Ha 10487 Heney Creek P1. Cupertino, Ca 95014 Sent from my iPads On Sep 16, 2013, at 4:32 AM, "jennieshabel @juno.com" <jennieshabel @1uno.com> wrote: > I also agree with this email. I and I assume all the people of Cupertino, would expect our representatives on the Cupertino City council to represent their constituents and file an amicus brief in our behalf. If not, I believe we need to elect people who can properly represent our interests and health of their constituents. > Please, we all need to raise our voices and gent what we expect from the Cupertino City Council. > Thank You, > Jack & Jennie Shabel > 22622 Oakcrest Ct. > Cupertino, Ca. 95014 > ---------- Original Message ---------- > From: Nadine Grant <nadine(@daveandnadine.com> > To: "oMahoney0cupertino.org" <oMahoney0cupertino.or >, "gwong @cupertino.org" <gwong0cupertino.org>, "msantoroRacupertino.org" <msantoroocupertino.org>, BChangocupertino.org, RSinkspcupertino.org > Subject: Need to file a Lehigh amicus brief > Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 20:15:52 -0700 > I would hope that the City Council would unanimously vote to file an amicus brief that shows your desire to protect the health and wel-Fare of the citizens of Cupertino. I find it amazing that the Council hasn't verbalized unanimously chosing to take this course of action, considering it has such a devastating affect for minimal effort & cost. > Sincerely, > Nadine Grant > 10463 Heney Creek P1 > Cupertino , CA 95014 > Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it. > http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4G,DUT2 1 Karen B. Guerin From: MaryAnn [masullivan_2000 @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 5:33 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: RE: Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Support Amicus Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council member Chang, Council member Santoro, and Council member Sinks - I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry is a major air and water pollution source. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. I hope you will join with the Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Respectfully, MaryAnn Sullivan i Karen B. Guerin From: gb136 @comcast.net Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 6:17 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Lehigh -about 9/17 agenda 0 prevent Lehigh from expanding mine activities without applying for a use permit. For public comment record: Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council member Chang, Council member Santoro, and Council member Sinks, I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. In my opinion Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry continues to demonstrate ongoing violations with a long record of violating important mining regulations and they are a major air and water pollution source, especially for us in Cupertino. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the recent Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." I hope you will join with these respected groups - Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District - in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws, on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Let's do this and support ourselves and our neighboring communities. Respectfully, Gail Bower Orange Ave Cupertino, CA i C 9 7 L' , -� -/ Karen B. Guerin From: gloria santilo [gsantilo @yahoo.corr] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 6:51 PM To: omahoney @cuperino.org; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Request to Support Abicus Brief- Bay Area for Clean Environment on Lehigh Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council member Chang, Council member Santoro, and Council member Sinks, I am writing to you today to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting the Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant. Lehigh is a gross polluter and should be subject to the current air standards and regulated. Respectfully, Gloria Santilo 1 C� 7- 13 . Z-4,g, Karen B. Guerin From: Karen Patti [pattikaren @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 9:01 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Lehigh cement plant To: omahoneyCaD-cupertino.org, gwongCcDcupertino.org, bchanga-cupertino.org, msantoroCa)cupertino.org, rsinks(a)-cupertino.org Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Councilmember Chang, Councilmember Santoro, and Councilmember Sinks, I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. I view the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry as having ongoing problems. This company has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director K:ishimoto summarized the issue well at the recent Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." I hope you will join with the Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back.our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, Karen Patti i Karen B. Guerin From: Terri Hoornstra [terrihoornstra @yalioo.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 8:59 PM To: Rod Sinks Subject: Amicus Vote Matters! Dear Council Member Sinks, Since you have always been supportive of a clean environment, I know you will vote to join the Mid-Peninsula Open Space District, and the Cities of Los Altos and Los Altos Hills in the amicus brief with the BACE vested rights lawsuit. I wanted to share with you the letter I have sent to the other Council Members. Cupertino is a "cluster" of autism. In the light of the recent study from Harvard (the latest of 5 studies) linking mercury and diesel pollution to the probability of a child being born with autism, our city must take every step possible on the side of limiting Lehigh's production of these harmful emissions. The fact that Lehigh has allowed mercury levels to rise high above EPA standards is alarming. As a teacher for 23 years at Regnart Elementary, I have seen the lives of many students altered by autism, and I've seen the worry and heartache of parents affected by their children's condition. The residents of Cupertino need you to be proactive to protect our environment. This is a moment where your leadership can make a difference. Thank you, Terri Hoornstra 10531 Manzanita Ct. Cupertino, CA 1 ee- q -7-/.3 Karen B. Guerin From: Terri Hoornstra [terrihoornstra @yatioo.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 8:43 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Amicus Vote Matters! Dear Mayor Mahoney, I am writing to encourage you to vote to join the Mid-Peninsula Open Space District, and the Cities of Los Altos and Los Altos Hills in the amicus brief with the BACE vested rights lawsuit. Cupertino is a "cluster of autism. In the light of the recent study from Harvard (the latest of 5 studies) linking mercury and diesel pollution to the probability of a child being born with autism, our city must take every step possiole on the side of limiting Lehigh's production of these harmful emissions. The fact that Lehigh has allowed mercury levels to rise high above EPA standards is alarming. As a teacher for 23 years at Regnart Elementary, I have seen the lives of many students altered by autism, and I've seen the worry and heartache of parents affected by their children's condition. The residents of Cupertino need you to be proactive to protect our environment. This is a moment where your leadership can make a difference. Thank you, Terri Hoornstra 10531 Manzanita Ct. Cupertino, CA 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Terri Hoornstra [terrihoornstra @yalioo.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 9:02 PM To: Barry Chang Subject: Amicus Vote Matters! Dear Council Member Chang, I know you have always been supportive of a clean environment, so I know you will vote to join the Mid-Peninsula Open Space District, and the Cities of Los Altos and Los Altos Hills in the amicus brief with the BACE vested rights lawsuit. I wanted to share with you the letter I have sent to the other council members. Cupertino is a "cluster" of autism. In the light of the recent study from Harvard (the latest of 5 studies) linking mercury and diesel pollution to the probability of a child being born with autism, our city must take every step possible on the side of limiting Lehigh's production of these harmful emissions. The fact that Lehigh has allowed mercury levels to rise high above EPA standards is alarming. As a teacher for 23 years at Regnart Elementary, I have seen the lives of many students altered by autism, and I've seen the worry and heartache of parents affected by their children's condition. The residents of Cupertino need you to be proactive to protect our environment. This is a moment where your leadership can make a difference. Thank you, Terri Hoornstra 10531 Manzanita Ct. Cupertino, CA 1 44 Karen B. Guerin From: karen iwamoto[kliwa @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 11:26 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Amicus Brief to support BACE Please join the Los Altos Hills City Council and the Los Altos City Council on filing the amicus brief to support the Mid peninsula Open Space District and BACE to prevent Lehigh from expanding mine activities without applying for a use permit. Thank you, Karen Iwamoto 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Gregory Baker[gbaker @scu.edu] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 3:25 AM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Please vote to file amicus brief in Lehigh matter Dear Mr. Mahoney, I strongly urge you to vote in favor of filing the amicus brief in the Lehigh matter so as to protect the citizens of Cupertino. Sincerely, Gregory A. Baker 23615 Oak Valley Road Cupertino, CA 95014 Typos courtesy of my iPad L' �- I'7-/3 Karen B. Guerin From: C Liou [carol_liou @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 11:22 PM Subject: Lehigh Cement Plan Dear Cupertino Council Person, The Bay Area for Clean Environment (RACE) has filed a lawsuit agairst Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant (Lehigh), contending that the Santa Clara County has distorted the"doctorine of non-conforming use" in a way such that it shall allow Lehigh to bypass important processes meant to protect the residents and environment surrounding Lehigh. In particular, Lehigh currently seeks to expand their mining activities, and Santa Clara County's distortion of the non-conforming use doctorine would allow Lehigh to expand their mine activities without first unde-going the important process of applying for a use permit. The Los Altos Hills City Council and Los Altos City Council are filing an amicus brief to support both the Midpeninsula Open Space District and BACE in preventing Lehigh Cement Quarry from expanding mine activities without first applying for a use permit. I'm writing this email to ask that the Cupertino Council follow suit, and also file an amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit. Since the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) will draft the amicus brief, your staff does not need to spend a lot of time, effort or expense in filing the brief. Lehigh is the largest polluter of mercury, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides in the Peninsula and South Bay, and is located in extremely close proximity to a very large number of Cupertino and Los Altos residents. Lehigh also has a long history of violating the Federal Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Labor laws and State Mining laws. I would want *all* corporations to diligently follow the requirements and processes that have been carefully put in place to protect the residents and environment surrounding it. But considering the type of pollutants Lehigh generates, its close proximity to a very large number of Silicon Valley residents, and its history of violations, Lehigh especially should not receive lenient interpretations of policies. Please file an amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit. Thank you, Carol Liou Cupertino Resident carol liou(a)vahoo.com 1 a-e- g-/7-13 _4.A,1#2-2- Karen B. Guerin From: Eran Cohen [eran99 @comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 10:56 PM To: jennieshabel @juno.com; Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks Subject: RE: Need to file a Lehigh amicus brief Agreed as well. I'd like to let the representatives know that whoever wants our vote next elections need to prove that the below subject is their first priority. Every resident of Cupertino I ever spoke to about this subject thinks so as well, so I believe that most (if not all) residents thinks similarly. I encourage the representatives to reach out to all Cupertino citizens and find that out for themselves. Eran Cohen -----Original Message----- From: iennieshabel@iuno.com [mailto:iennieshabel@juno.com] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 9:32 PM To: oMahoney@cupertino.org; gwong @cupertino.org; msantoro @cupertino.org; BChang@cupertino.org; RSinks@cupertino.org Subject: Re: Need to file a Lehigh amicus brief I also agree with this email. I and I assume all the people of Cupertino, would expect our representatives on the Cupertino City council to represent their constituents and file an amicus brief in our behalf. If not, I believe WE! need to elect people who can properly represent our interests and health of their constituents. Please, we all need to raise our voices and get what we expect from the Cupertino City Council. Thank You, Jack & Jennie Shabel 22622 Oakcrest Ct. Cupertino, Ca. 95014 ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Nadine Grant <nadine @daveandnadine.com> To: "oMahonev @cupertino.org" <oMahoney@cupertino.org>, "gwong@cupertino.org" <gwong@cupertino.org>, "msantoro@cupertino.org" <msantoro @cupertino.org>, BChang@cupertino.org, RSinks @cupertino.org Subject: Need to file a Lehigh amicus brief Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 20:15:52 -0700 I would hope that the City Council would unanimously vote to file an amicus brief that shows your desire to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of Cupertino. I find it amazing that the Council hasn't verbalized unanimously --hosing to take this course of action, considering it has such a devastating affect fo^ minimal effort & cost. Sincerely, Nadine Grant 1 10463 Heney Creek P1 Cupertino , CA 95014 Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it. http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2 2 17'1.3 Karen B. Guerin From: chunhwei chen [chunhwei @gmail.c:om] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 10:34 PM To: Barry Chang Subject: Support Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant To: omahoney(a-)-cupertino.org, gwong(a cupertino.org, bchang(D-cupertino.org, msantoro(ab-cupertino.org, rsinks a(-cupertino.org Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council member Chang, Council member Santoro, and Council member Sinks, I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's ves-:ed rights. I view the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry as having ongoing problems. This company has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the recent Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." I hope you will join with the Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws; on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, Chun Hwei Chen i ��- SI Karen B. Guerin From: Alan Penn [alanp_usa @yahoo.corn] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 10:26 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Please file an amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant(Lehigh) Dear City Council members, Few days ago, Los Alto City Council unanimously approved to join Town of Los Altos Hills and Midpeninsula Regional Space District(MROSD) to file an amicus brief to support Bay Area for Clean Environment's (BACE's) lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant(Lehigh). We are long term residents living in this area, through the years Lehigh continuously violating the regulations, now it is the time to stop. We would appreciate if you can represent us for our best interest to vote. Please follow Los Altos Hills and MROSD to support filing an amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant(Lehigh). Thanks. Alan 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Stewart Kelly[stu.kelly @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 10:26 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Rod Sinks; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro Subject: 9/17 City Council meeting, item#22 Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council member Chang, Council member Santoro, and Council member Sinks, I strongly urge you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. As a Cupertino resident living just to the east of the Lehigh facility since 2002, 1 was quite surprised to learn several years ago that the facility is one of the largest sources of mercury pollution in the state. Mercury in food has been recognized as a serious health hazard since the 1970s, and the Council has been shown recent research about links between mercury exposure and autism. Compounding the danger posed by mercury, the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry has a poor record in regard to mining regulations and protecting air and wader quality. For the safety of residents in Cupertino and surrounding communities, the Lehigh facility requires more governmental oversight. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, Stewart Kelly Cupertino resident 9- 716 s - Karen B. Guerin From: jennieshabel @juno.com Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 9:32 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Mar'<Santoro; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks Subject: Re: Need to file a Lehigh amicus brief I also agree with this email. I and I assume all the people of Cupertino, would expect our representatives on the Cupertino City council to represent their constituents and file an amicus brief in our behalf. If not, I believe we need to elect people who can properly represent our interests and health of their constituents. Please, we all need to raise our voices and get what we expect from the Cupertino City Council. Thank You, Jack & Jennie Shabel 22622 Oakcrest Ct. Cupertino, Ca. 95014 ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Nadine Grant <nadine()daveandnadine.com> To: "oMahoneyocupertino.org" <oMahoneyocupertino.org>, "gwong(cupertino.org" <gwong(cupertino.org>, "msantoro(cupertino.org" <msantoro(cupertino.org>, BChang(cupertino.org, RSinks()cupertino.org Subject: Need to file a Lehigh amicus brief Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2013 20:15:52 -0700 I would hope that the City Council would unanimously vote to file an amicus brief that shows your desire to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of Cupertino. I find it amazing that the Council hasn't verbalized unanimously chosing to take this course of action, considering it has such a devastating affect for minimal effort & cost. Sincerely, Nadine Grant 10463 Heney Creek P1 Cupertino , CA 95014 Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it. http•//www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUI'2 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Raghurama Bhat[raghu @gokul.com] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 8:27 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry issue Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council member Chang, Council member Santoro, and Council member Sinks, I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. I view the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry as having ongoing problems. This company has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment(BALE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the recent Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." I hope you will join with the Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, Raghurama Bhat Vathsala Bhat 10670 Merriman Road Cupertino i Karen B. Guerin From: Nadine Grant[nadine @daveandnadine.com] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 8:16 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks Subject: Need to file a Lehigh amicus brief I would hope that the City Council would unanimously vote to file an amicus brief that shows your desire to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of Cupertino. I find it amazing that the Council hasn't verbalized unanimously chosing to take this course of action, considering it has such a devastating affect for minimal effort & cost. Sincerely, Nadine Grant 10463 Heney Creek P1 Cupertino , CA 95014 1 »- i3 - Karen B. Guerin From: John Buenz Ubuenz0835 @att.net] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 6:20 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Cupertino_suppport_amicus_brief sample_letter To: omahoney(a)-cupertino.org, gwong(a),cupertino.org, bchang(aD-cupertino.org, msantoro(a-)cupertino.org, rsinks(a)-cupertino.org Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council member Chang, Council member Santoro, and Council member Sinks, I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. I view the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry as having ongoing problems. This company has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director K.ishimoto summarized the issue well at the recent Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." I hope you will join with the Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution proble ns warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, John and Marilyn Buenz 22115 Dean Ct, Cupertino CA 95014 i C-c 9-)7-/3 . 4zt,, ..2.2- Karen B. Guerin From: Anand Gangadharan [anand @indi;3.org] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 6:24 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Please support the Midpeninsula Open Space District and BACE with an amicus brief To: omahoney(a�cupertino.orq, gwonq(d)-cupertino.orq, bchang(a-cupertino.org, msantoro(a)-cupertino.orq, rsinks(a)-cupertino.org Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council member Chang, Council member Santoro, and Council member Sinks: I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. I view the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry as having ongoing problems conforming to mining regulations. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (RACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. I hope you will join with the Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, Anand Gangadharan Lebanon Dr., Cupertino, CA 95014 i 0-0- 947- 8 - Karen B. Guerin From: Jeannie 0ksunflower @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 10:11 AM To: Barry Chang Subject: Amicus to support Bay Area for Clean Environment(BACE) Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council members Chang, Santoro and Sinks, We are asking you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry has ongoing problems. Lehigh has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. You -an see their pollution on the hillside, especially in Rancho San Antonio park. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staffs recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District(MROSD) Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the 9/5/13 Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." We hope you will join with the city councils of Los Altos Hills, Los Altos, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our Cupertino and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, Jeannie and Jonathan Kimura Cupertino residents i Karen B. Guerin From: Jeannie Uksunflower @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 10:07 AM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; bch�3nge @cupertino.org; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Amicus to support Bay Area for Clean Environment (RACE) Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council members Chang, Santoro and Sinks, We are asking you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry has ongoing problems. Lehigh has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. You can see their pollution on the hillside, especially in Rancho San Antonio park. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the 9/5/13 Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." We hope you will join with the city councils of Los Altos Hills, Los Altos, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our Cupertino and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, Jeannie and Jonathan Kimura Cupertino residents i Karen B. Guerin From: Paul Dueweke[pwdueweke @yaho,:).com] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 6:07 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Please file an amicus brief to support BACE Cupertino City Council, Please file an amicus brief to support the Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) lawsuit against Lehigh Cement and the Santa Clara County, whose Board of Supervisors unilaterally decided that the Lehigh right to pollute and to expand their pollution supersedes our rights to a healthy environment.. Paul Dueweke Marilyn Dueweke i Karen B. Guerin From: Chester Gabriel [gabrie1002 @comc:ast.net] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 3:51 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Amicus Brief in No Toxic Air, Inc. v. Santa Clara County, et al We urge you to join the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District(MROSD) and the City of Los Altos Hills by signing an amicus brief with the No Toxic Air, Inc. v. Santa Clara County, et al. lawsuit. The current ruling of the County Board of Supervisors gives Lehigh a blank check to pollute. Chester and Cynthia Gabriel 10334 Scenic Blvd Cupertino, CA 1 13 Karen Karen B. Guerin From: John Hopkins Un_hopkins2005 @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 3:31 PM To: City Council Subject: Amicus Brief Cupertino City Council We recommend that you vote in favor of joining Los Altos Hills and Los Altos City in support of the amicus brief, agenda item 22 in the City Council meeting scheduled for 17 September 2013. Thank you John and Carolyn Hopkins 11395 Canyon View Cir Cupertino, CA 95014 i ele- q-1-74S Karen B. Guerin From: Susan Sievert[spsievert@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 12:55 PM To: City Council Subject: September 17: Agenda Item 22 Written Communication for Sept. 17, 2013:Agenda Item 22 Dear Cupertino City Council, Please join the Amicus Brief supporting the court appeal to correct they County Board of Supervisors'error in judgement. Background I'm going to focus briefly on one of the Board's vested rights errors. In 1995,the Hanson Permanente Quarry(now Lehigh) purchased a property. In 2006, Leigh-Hanson's legal counsel, Diepenbrock Harrison, described this acquisition as follows: "Next to the cement plant is the former aluminum plant site,which covers approximately 153 acres.The site was under completely separate ownership from the quarry until 1995,when the owners sold the defunct plant to[Hanson owned] Kaiser Cement.The aluminum plant is not used, nor has it ever been used,to process mired material from Permanente Quarry."(1) Soon after this site was purchased,the Quarry began using it as a dumping ground for mining waste. Public pressure led to Notices of Violations (NOVs),a stunning attempt to hide their expansion within a Reclamation Plan Amendment, and a written agreement with the County, but without a public hearing,to allow the dumping to continue!.(2) Finally,the Board agendized the controversy as an all-encompassing vested rights question, and, as if on cue, Lehigh-Hanson began claiming a vested right to mine the former aluminum plant site—purchased in 1995. Were there any mining disturbances on this 153-acre site recorded in the Quarry's Reclamation Plan in 1985?None. Did Lehigh- Hanson make a vested rights claim prior to or after receiving NOVs in 2006 and 2008? No.Was there a vested rights claim made in the 2009 written agreement to continue the dumping? No. According to a County staffs investigation, Lehigh-Hanson's vested rights claim had no basis in fact. But that wasn't enough to persuade the Board to rule in favor of the evidence. Again, please join the Amicus Brief. If the Board's ruling is allowed to stand,what will prevent mining operations throughout the state from acquiring adjacent lands,and transferring vested rights to those lands? Thank you for your time. Susan Sievert (1) Lehigh Hanson 01-04-11 Appendix G-Vested Rights Affirmations, page 286. (2)AGREEMENT: County of Santa Clara, File 2250—09P 1 Karen B. Guerin From: DLBodwin [Diane @Bodwin.us] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 7:50 AM To: City Council Subject: support for amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit Please count my voice in favor of urging the Cupertino City Council to file an amicus brief to support Bay Area for Clean Environment's (BACE's) lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant (Lehigh). Diane Bodwin 22475 Palm Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 i Karen B. Guerin From: jason whong Dason_whong @hotm;3il.com] Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 11:17 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Sept. 17 Meeting Dear Cupertino City Council Members: Please vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment ("BACE") on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights and join the Los Altos City Council, Los Altos Hills City Council and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in taking action against air and water pollution in our community. Lehigh has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. The County Board of Supervisors issued a decision in March 2011, which inappropriately allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit. On May 27, 2011, BACE filed a lawsuit against the Board and Lehigh requesting reversal of the March 2011 decision. Please urge the court to overturn the Board's decision by filing an amicus brief supporting BACE on this issue. Thank you, as Cupertino should send a message that it is united with its neighbors to protect our homes, schools and communities. Respectfully, Jason Whong Karen B. Guerin From: Panos & Christina Kougiouris [pc @kougiouris.org] Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 10:4.9 PM To: Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks; Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang Subject: Filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights To: omahoney(cb-cupertino.orq, awonq(cb-cupertino.orq, bchangC@-cupertino.org, msantoro(D-cupertino.orq, rsinks(a-)-cupertino.orq Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Councilmember Chang, Councilmember Santoro, and Councilmember Sinks, I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. I view the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry as having ongoing problems. This company has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand irnining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the recent Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." I hope you will join with the Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, i Karen B. Guerin From: Gary Ettinger[gary@ettingers.org] Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 7:00 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Please vote to join the Amicus brief City Council members, Please vote for joining the city of Los Altos Hills,the city of Los Altos and the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District in an amicus brief with BACE's vested rights lawsuit to protect the ability of local agencies to maintain oversight of the cement plant and quarry. Sincerely, Gary Ettinger 10948 Sycamore Drive Cupertino 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Eva Kashkooli [evarieber @yahoo.c:om] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 1:32 PM To: Rod Sinks Subject: amicus brief Hi Rod, Fred and I fully support your position on the amicus brief that the MOSD and other cities have already endorsed. Thank you, Eva Kashkooli Cupertino voter i Karen B. Guerin From: Eva Kashkooli [evarieber @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 1:29 PM To: Barry Chang Subject: amicus brief Hi Barry, Just want to make sure you know that Fred and I fully support your effort to correct the serious problems with Lehigh Cement. Thank you for your perseverance in this regard, Eva Kashkooli i q- /7- 2- Karen B. Guerin From: Eva Kashkooli [evarieber @yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 5:12 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: amicus brief Please support the MOSD & BACE by voting for the amicus brief. Your vote in favor of this matter will mean you are protecting your constituents against air and water pollution. Thank you, Eva Kashkooli Cupertino voter i Karen B. Guerin From: Eva Kashkooli [evarieber @yahoo.c:om] Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 5:17 PM To: Mark Santoro Subject: amicus brief Please vote to support the MOSD & BACE by voting for the amicus brief. Your support of this matter will mean you are trying to protect your constituents from air and water pollution. Thanks, Eva Kashkooli Cupertino voter i oc 9- Karen B. Guerin From: Eva Kashkooli [evarieber @yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 5:15 PM To: Gilbert Wong Subject: amicus brief Please vote to support MOSD & BACE by voting for the amicus brief. Your vote in favor of this brief will mean you are trying to protect your constituents against air and water pollution. Thanks, Eva Kashkooli Cupertino voter i 9-1-7- 13 Karen B. Guerin From: Chris Toomey[ctoomey @gmail.corn] Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 3:26 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Please vote for joining amicus brief with BACE's vested rights lawsuit Dear City Council Members, Please vote for joining the city of Los Altos Hills,the city of Los Altos and the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District in an amicus brief with BACE's vested rights lawsuit to protect the ability of local agencies to maintain oversight of the cement plant and quarry. Thank you for your support of this important action to help protect our health and environment. Chris Toomey 23694 Black Oak Way Cupertino 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Vicky Yue Ho [vickyyueho @yahoo.(,-om] Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 1:56 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Vote to support controlling our environment Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council member Chang, Council member Santoro, and Council member Sinks, I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. Enough of the mercury emission, fumes, noise, pollution from those trucks in our neighborhood 24/7. They do not belong to our neighborhood. I view the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry as having ongoing problems. This company has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the recent Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." I hope you will join with the Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, i Karen B. Guerin From: Jack Hamilton Uhamiltonca @earthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 12:14 PM To: City Council Subject: Action at City Council Meeting on September 17 Dear City Council members, I'm writing to urge all of you to vote on September 17 for joining Los Altos Hills and the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District in an amicus brief with BACE's vested rights lawsuit to protect the ability of local agencies to maintain oversight of the Kaiser Permanente cement plant that is IocatE!d in the foothills above Cupertino on the northeast slopes of Black Mountain. Many of the residents at The Forum at Rancho San Antonio have respiratory difficulties that are exasperated by the particulate emanating from the Kaiser Permanente cement plant stacks. If scrubbers were to be installed on the stacks at the plant, it would alleviate this problem. Best regards, Jack Hamilton, Ph.D. 23500 Cristo Rey Drive, #305E Cupertino, CA 95014 Karen B. Guerin From: Susan Rinsky[susons @yahoo.coin] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 11:02 AM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks; Mark Santoro Subject: Fwd: Amicus to support Bay Area for Clean Environment(BACE) Subject: Amicus to support Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Ccuncilmembers Chang, Santoro, and Sinks, I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. I view the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry as having ongoing problems. This company has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the 9/5/13 Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more! importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." I hope you will join with the Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, Dr. Lawrence A Rinsky Karen B. Guerin From: joy barrett Doynjoe2 @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 11:12 AM To: City Council Subject: Lehigh Cement Dear Council Member, Lehigh Cement Plant has a long record of violating important mining regulations and polluting our city as well as other cities in the area. Now they are being allowed to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit which would place reasonable limits on them. I am asking you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. Respectively, Joy Barrett 1 A-5-z Karen B. Guerin From: Bill Walster[billwalster @gmail.com] on behalf of G. William (Bill) Walster[bill @walster.net] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 11:05 AM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Cc: Barry Chang Subject: amicus brief in support of the Bay Area for Clean Environment's (BACE's) lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant(Lehigh) Honorable Mayor Orrin Mahoney, Vice Mayor Gilbert Wong, Council member Mark Santoro, and Council member Rod Sinks: I write to urge you file an amicus brief(joining the city of Los Altos, the town of Los Altos Hills and the Midpeninsula Regional Space District(MROSD)) in support of the Bay Area for Clean Environment's (BACE's) lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant (Lehigh). When I lived in Cupertino, I could see on a daily basis the huge amount of pollution emitted by Lehigh. Then, I learned about the mercury and other toxic chemicals Lehigh emits into both our air and water, and the impacts they have on fetal brain development. Then, by chance, I met Barry Change, who was campaigning door-to-door in my neighborhood, and asked if elected, would he work on the Cupertino City Council to i'orce Lehigh to obey the law and stop its pollution. Because of his answer, I joined his campaign and others who are committed to clean up the Lehigh blight on our environment and danger to public health and safety. I now live in Sunnyvale. My wife and I have long admired how well and progressively Sunnyvale is run. It will send a strong message if Sunnyvale and Cupertino join other cities, towns, and the MROSD in support of BACE's lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh. Within the doctrine of nonconforming use, rules allowing nonconforming use should be narrowly construed because nonconforming use is highly disfavored. The issue in BACE's appeal is that Santa Clara County has outrageously distorted the doctrine of nonconforming use. The County Supervisors overruled its own staffs recommendation and gave much more than what Lehigh had originally requested. Given the fact that Lehigh is the largest polluter of mercury, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides in the Peninsula and South Bay, compounded with Lehigh's long history of violating the Federal Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Labor laws and State Mining laws, it is our duty to stop these violations and to protect our residents' health and safety. It has been proven that we can accomplish more to protect public health and the economic engine here in Silicon Valley. More than a year ago, City of Los Altos j pined Town of Los Altos Hills and City of Cupertino. We sent a letter to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and asked for more protective rules for cleaner air from the cement industry. With our efforts together, BAAQMD did issue stricter rules for Regulation 9, Rule 13 which went into effect on September 9, 2013. This provides a cleaner air for our residents two years ahead of EPA's new rules. Working together, we can protect our residents' health. Lehigh is very unique, for it is the only cement plant in operation in the United States which is so close to large populous metropolitan area. And it is the only cement plant that next to Silicon Valley, the high tech power engine for our region, our state and our nation. As you know that high tech industry is very competitive. It relies heavily on innovation- which depends on the brain power of highly-educated people. Lehigh's pollution and violation of the laws needs to be reined in to protect the health and brain power of these people. 1 Since Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) will draft the amicus brief, your staff does not need to spend a lot of time to prepare for it. You can set a limit for the cost not to exceed $5,000. When there are more cities joining MROSD, Town of Los Altos Hills and City of Los Altos, the cost can be further reduced. With a relatively small amount of money and minimum amount of work from City staff, you can show your constituents that you are protecting their health and the economic engine in Silicon Valley. Please file an amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit. Together, we can bring Lehigh into compliance with the laws and protect our residents' health. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Barry Chang, or Mr. Stuart Flashman, Esq., at 510- 652-5373 (0), 510-504-0154 (Cel) <stustuflash.com>. Thank you in advance for your help. Sincerely, Dr. G. William Walster, Ph. D. 2 Karen B. Guerin From: Susan Rinsky [susons @yahoo.corn] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 11:02 AM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Rod Sinks; Mark Santoro Subject: Fwd: Amicus to support Bay Area for Clean Environment(BACE) Subject: Amicus to support Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Co.ancilmembers Chang, Santoro, and Sinks, I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh CE!ment Plant and Quarry's vested rights. I view the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry as having ongoing problems. This company has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the 9/5/13 Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." I hope you will join with the Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, Dr. Lawrence A Rinsky Karen B. Guerin From: Jiaqian 0iagian @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 12:00 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: BACE Dear Cupertino council members: Please support the Midpeninsula Open space District and BACE with amicus brief. Regards, Julia Wan Sent from my iPad Karen B. Guerin From: Rhoda Fry [fryhouse @earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 12:06 PM To: City Council; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City Clerk Subject: Item#22, Committee for Green Foothills Attachments: CGF letter re BACE amicus brief 9.9.13.pdf Dear City Council, Please find attached letter that the Committee for Green Foothills sent to the City of Los Altos. It contains information that is equally applicable to citizens of Cupertino. Sincerely, Rhoda Fry 1 COMMITTEE FOR GREEN FOOTHILLS September 9, 2013 Los Altos City Council 1 North San Antonio Road Los Altos, CA council(&losal1osca.aov RE: Bay Area Clean Environment amicus brief Dear Members of the Los Altos City Council, Committee for Green Foothills strongly urges the City Council to join Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District(MROSD) in filing an amicus brief in the case of No Toxic Air Inc. v. Santa Clara County, et al., Case No. H039547 (6th District). Committee for Green Foothills(CGF) is an environmental organization dedicated to preserving open space and natural resources in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. We have members living in the neighborhood of Lehigh Permanents;Quarry, including members in Los Altos. CGF has a strong interest in protecting the environment of the hillsides and nearby areas, including Permanente Creek. Although the issues in the above-referenced case are complex,the principle behind it is simple: activities that cause environmental impacts should be subject to reasonable regulation. Unfortunately,the County's decision regarding Lehigh's vested rights left the quarry's activities exempt from regulation, in spite of the fact that this heavy industrial use is ongoing right next to residential neighborhoods. It is important that not only the court but also the County of Santa Clara, whose decision regarding the vested rights of Lehigh Permanente Quarry is being appealed in this case, hear the message that all of the cities that border on the quarry property are concerned about whether the quarry activities are being properly regulated. Even if this lawsuit is unsuccessful, Los Altos' action in joining this amicus brief will not be wasted if the County is made aware that Los Altos takes this issue seriously and is concerned about the regulation of the mining activities taking place on its borders. Please join MROSD's amicus brief to show that Los Altos, along with the quarry's other neighbors, supports reasonable regulation of the quarry's mining activity. Sincerely, ,I��,0 Alice Kaufman Legislative Advocate, Committee for Green Foothills COMMITTEE FOR 3921 E. Bayshore Road 650.968.7243 PHONE info@GreenFoothills.org GREEN FOOTHILLS Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.968.8431 FAX www.GreenFoothills.org �2_c_ 9 - -7-73 Karen B. Guerin From: RICHARD ADLER [radler @digipla(,es.com] Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 12:4:3 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Agenda item#21 Dear Council Member Mahoney, On Tuesday,the City Council will consider a small but important, request (agenda item#21) for the City to sponsor a Positive Aging Conference at the Quinlan Center in November. I had an opportunity to participate in earlier Positive Aging events sponsored by the same group in both Cupertino and Palo Alto. The last event in Cupertino, held in 2008,drew over 125 participants. That event was a satellite for a larger national conference that was taking place in Wisconsin, but this year's conference will be a stand-alone event that focuses specifically on issues related to the aging of the population in Cupertino and surrounding communities. As Cupertino's senior population continues to grow,this is an important project. Several years ago, I led a year-long research project for the City of San Mateo that resulted in a report titled Aging Well San Mateo that provided that community with a blueprint for making itself a more aging-friendly community. I would like to see Cupertino begin to consider some of these same issues. As I understand it, city sponsorship of this event would alleviate the group of having to pay a rental fee for use of the Quinlan Center.This is a very small amount for the city, but would be very helpful to the conference organizers — and would allow the City of Cupertino to publicly show its support for this project. Please vote for this request. Thanks, Richard 10778 Juniper Ct Cupertino,CA 95014 1 17 /3 =4;e ,, 4kj.Z Karen B. Guerin From: Alice Kaufman [alice @greenfoothills.org] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 1:07 PM To: City Council Subject: Amicus brief in No Toxic Air, Inc. v. Santa Clara County Attachments: CGF_Cupertino_amicus brief 9.16.13.pdf Dear Members of the Cupertino City Council, Attached is Committee for Green Foothills' comment letter on the above-referenced matter. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Alice Yaufman Legislative Advocate,Committee for Green Foothills 650-968-7243 x.313 3921 East Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 www.greenfoothills.org 1 pFOR GREEN FOOTHILLS September 16, 2013 Cupertino City Council 10350 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA citvcouncil(2cupel-tino.ora RE: Bay Area Clean Environment amicus brief Dear Members of the Cupertino City Council, Committee for Green Foothills strongly urges the City Council to join Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District(MROSD) and the cities of Los Altos and Los Altos Hills in filing an amicus brief in the case of No Toxic Air Inc. v. Santa Clara County, et al., Case No. H039547 (6th District). Committee for Green Foothills (CGF) is an environmental organization dedicated to preserving open space and natural resources in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. We have members living in the neighborhood of Lehigh Permanente Quarry, including members in Cupertino. CGF has a strong interest in protecting the environment of the hillsides and nearby areas, including Permanente Creek. Although the issues in the above-referenced case are complex,the principle behind it is simple: activities that cause environmental impacts should be subject to reasonable regulation. Unfortunately,the County's decision regarding Lehigh's vested rights left the quarry's activities exempt from regulation, in spite of the fact that this heavy industrial use is ongoing right next to residential neighborhoods. It is important that not only the court but also the County of Santa Clara,whose decision regarding the vested rights of Lehigh Permanente Quarry is being appealed in this case, hear the message that all of the cities that border on the quarry property are concerned about whether the quarry activities are being properly regulated. Even if this lawsuit is unsuccessful, Cupertino's action in joining this amicus brief will not be wasted if the County is made aware that the City of Cupertino takes this issue seriously and is concerned about the regulation of the mining activities taking place on its borders. Please join MROSD, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills in this amicus brief to show that Cupertino, along with the quarry's other neighbors, supports reasonable regulation of the quarry's mining activity. Sincerely, Alice Kaufman Legislative Advocate, Committee for Green Foothills COMMITTEE FOR 3921 E. Bayshore Road 650.968.7243 PHONE info@GreenFoothills.org GREEN FOOTHILLS Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.968.8431 FAX www.GreenFoothills.org e /7 - 17- l3 ._t--f�,,t A_22_ Karen B. Guerin From: Arlene Chan [arlenech @gmail.con-i] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 12:40 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Fwd: City Council Meeting 9/17 To Whom it may Concern: Please join the Los Altos Hills City Council and the Los Altos City Council on filing the amicus brief to support the Midpeninsula Open Space District and BACE to prevent Lehigh from expanding mine activities without applying for a use permit. Thank you for your kind consideration. Yours, Arlene Chan Cupertino resident Karen B. Guerin From: Don Potter [donald.potter @ieee.org] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 12:12 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Bary Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council member Chang, Council member Santoro, and Council member Sinks, I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. I view the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry as having ongoing problems. This company has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff s recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the recent Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." I hope you will join with the Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, Donald R. Potter 21160 Canyon Oak Way Cupertino, CA Karen B. Guerin From: Don MacCubbin [maccubb @yahoc.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 1:37 PM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights Mayor Mahoney. I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. In my opinion, the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry have been poor corporate citizens that have done environmental damage that adversely effects not only the natural ecosystems of the foothills but also the health and quality of life of the citizens of Cupertino and Los Altos. The company has a record of violating important mining regulations and is a major source air and water pollution. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to overturn a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. I sincerely believe the County Board of Supervisors were derelict in their duties in approving this decision. It is not the first time that the County has not done their due diligence regarding the Lehigh(previously Permanente, Heidelberg) operation - previously the California Bureau of Mines threatened to revoke the County's oversight of the mining operation due to substandard performance. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the recent Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." I hope you will do the right thing for the City of Cupertino, its residents and most importantly, the environment, and join with the Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supoorting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh borders our city and its past poor performance and ongoing environmental impact demand proper regulation - not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws nor lack of sufficient oversight over their operations and expansive property holdings. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, Don MacCubbin 10144 Lebanon Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 i Karen B. Guerin From: Ian Flint[ianflint @yahoo-inc.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 2:03 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Lehigh Cement City Council, please vote for joining the city of Los Altos Hills, the city of Los Altos and the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District in an amicus brief with BACE's vested rights lawsuit to protect the ability of local agencies to maintain oversight of the cement plant and quarry. Thanks, Ian Flint 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Vasudeo Hadap [v_hadap @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 2:53 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: City Council Meeting on Tuesday, 9/17.. Dear Mayor Mahoney, Vice Mayor Wong, Council member Chang, Council member Santoro, and Council member Sinks, I am writing to ask you to vote in favor of filing an amicus brief supporting Bay Area for Clean Environment on the issue of Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry's vested rights. I view the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry as having ongoing problems. This company has a long record of violating important mining regulations and is a major air and water pollution source. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) filed a (lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The board's decision, which went against its own staff's recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the recent Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage tc, protect the public health..." I hope you will join with the Los Altos Hills City Council, Los Altos City Council, and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in their amicus brief supporting the legal action brought by Bay Area for Clean Environment. Lehigh is very close to our city and its pollution problems warrant increased regulation, and not arbitrary and permanent immunity from reasonable zoning laws on their vast expanse of hillside property. Your support of the filing of the amicus brief may help win back our rights in court, and it will send a message to other agencies such as the County that the Cupertino City Council is united with our neighbors to protect our homes and communities. Respectfully, -vasudeo hadap Dear Neighbor, There is an important Cupertino City Council meeting regarding the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry on Tuesday 9/17/2013. Before Tuesday, September 17, you can help by sending an easy email (see attached sample) to the council members to request that the Cupertino City Council join with other cities and other organizations to try to prevent Lehigh from expanding mine activities without applying for a use permit. On Tuesday night, the Cupertino City Council will be voting on whether to join the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Los Altos Hills City Council and the Los Altos City Council on a letter to the courts (called an amicus brief). Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto summarized the issue well at the recent Cupertino City Council Study Session on the Lehigh Cement Plant and Quarry. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director Kishimoto served 8 years on the Palo Alto City Council where she also held the position of Mayor, and served for 3 years on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board which is how she first got to know about Lehigh. Director Kishimoto asks for the other cities to join Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and "...send a strong message to the county and to Lehigh that the surrounding cities and agencies such as ours are united in insisting upon an effective and coordinated public oversight and control assuming that the operation is going to continue and even more importantly if there is any contemplation of expansion in the future and this vested rights issue is central to us having that leverage to protect the public health..." Link to the Cupertino City Council Study Session. http://cupertino.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=18&clip id=1542 Director Kishimoto speaks 1 hour and 19 minutes into the Cupertino City Council Meeting. Unlike modern mining operations in California, Lehigh Southwest is currently exempt from obtaining conditional use permits on a majority of their land. On May 27, 2011, Bay Area for Clean Environment (BACE) filed a lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest asking the court to throw out a March, 2011 decision by the County Board of Supervisors granting vested, or grandfathered, mining rights to Lehigh. The Board's decision, which went against its own staffs recommendation, allows Lehigh to expand mining activities without applying for a use permit that would place reasonable limits on its operations. What you can do now (before Tuesday night): Email Cupertino City Council. omahoney(d),cupertino.orq, gwonq _cupertino.orq, bchang(@_cupertino.orq, msantoroo)_cupertino.orq, rsinks(a.cupertino.org And write, Please support the Midpeninsula Open Space District and BACE with an amicus brief. You can see the attached sample letter. AND/OR On Tuesday September 17th, not beginning before 6:45 PM, attend the meeting and speak on agenda item #22 in support of the amicus brief that Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District plans to file. 2 Background Cuptertino City Staff report. http://cuperti no.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?meta id=84699&view=&showpdf=1 :s 9�V? Grace Schmidt From: Carol Korade Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 10:18 AM To: Grace Schmidt Subject: Fwd:Amicus Brief Background Begin forwarded message: From:"James, Sandra L. (Cupertino) NA"<Sand ra.Ja rnes@ Lehigh Hanson.com> Date:September 16, 2013, 9:44:31 AM PDT To: David Brandt<Davidb @cupertino.org>, Carol Korade<carolk cupertino.org> Subject:Amicus Brief Background Dear David and Carol, I am sending you the following information on the Amicus Brief issue that is before the City Council on Tuesday's agenda. I have prepared for you an outline of the vested rights chronology that demonstrates that this process was public and transparent and that this late attack by cities against the county on a land use issue, instigated by Councilmember Chang, pits jurisdiction over jurisdiction and this, cannot be constructive for city/county relationships. An amicus brief challenges the cIE;cision that the BOS made and pursuant to the filings in the lawsuit states that what they did was illegal. I can only appreciate the intense amount of lobbying you must be receiving on this issue but I would respectfully request that you give serious consideration and not support Councilmember Chang's initiative. As of Monday our facility is one of the most environmentally compliant cement facilities in the country. We are two years ahead of the EPA requirements and within the next few months we will have our new stack under construction. From the testimony last week by the County, BAAQMD, and RWQCB we have been proactive and engaged in ensuring that we meet and in some cases exceed all of the regulations that we are required to operate under. These facts are in direct contrast to the hyperbole that has been slung against our operations at public comment at the September 51h City Council meE:ting. As you are aware the Permanente site provides over 90% of all of the cement that used in the construction industry in Northern California (from roads, airports, corporate campuses, schools, the new 49er stadium, etc...) and is a critical facility to this industry and our local economy. Over the years the team at Permanente has taken great pride in being active in the Cupertino community and supporting the nonprofits that e-ihance the character of our city. Having Cupertino take a public stand and support a lawsuit that at its very senescence is attempting to put us out of business (and our 160 employees and hundreds of contractors) will have unknown consequences. Please let me know if you have any further. questions... 1- On March 1, 2011 the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors (BOS) determined that a portion, but not all,of the Lehigh property was "vested."This means that the operation was commenced prior to the date the County first required a use permit for quarrying activities on the area. 1 2- In advance of taking this vote,the BOS did significant public noticing and outreach,giving any and all interested parties the chance to submit evidence and argument on the issue. 3- The BOS reviewed, literally,thousands of pages of evidence concerning the nature and extent of the historical uses on the site in making its determination. 4- The BOS followed advice from County Counsel on the relevant legal standards. 5- The BOS made formal findings explaining its decision and the evidentiary bases for it. 6- Legal challenge must be made within 30 days. 7- The only party making such a challenge was No Toxic Air(now having changed its name to Bay Area for a Clean Environment). On March 25 the trial court, after a detail two-day hearing looking at all the evidence, denied the legal challenge,finding that the BOS decision complied with law and that the decision was supportE!d by substantial evidence. 8- NTA was ordered to pay Lehigh and the County over 10K in costs, which remain unpaid. 9- NTA filed an appeal of the trial court's decision. 10- No other party participated, attended or intervened in the trial court proceedings. 11- The precedent to join a challenge to the BO'i decision is bad and made worse by the fact that there were many opportunities for affected parties to participate earlier, both in court and administratively. 12- Determining vested rights is a fact intensive inquiry that requires the exercise of discretion and judgment, like many land use decisions. All local jurisdictions are called upon to make such decisions routinely. Best Rsgards, Sandy Sandra James Public Affairs Manager Region West Lehigh Hanson 24001 Stevens Creek Boulevard Cupertino,CA 95014-5659 Tel: 408 996 4158 Cell: 408 316 0845 Sandra James o(DLehiohHanson.COm 2 Karen B. Guerin From: Sam Kao [sskao @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:01 AM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Cc: feikao3 @yahoo.com Subject: Please file an amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant(Lehigh) Dear City Council members, Few days ago, Los Alto City Council unanimously approved to join Town of Los Altos Hills and Midpeninsula Regional Space District(MROSD) to file an amicus brief to support Bay Area for Clean Environment's (BACE's) lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant (Lehigh). We are long term residents living in this area, through the years Lehigh continuously violating the regulations, now it is the time to stop. We would appreciate if you can represent us for our best interest to vote. Please follow Los Altos Hills and MROSD to support filing an amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant(Lehigh). Thanks. Sam Karen B. Guerin From: j p Boannep001 @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:62 AM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks; Barry Chang Subject: Please file an amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant Dear City Council members, Few days ago, Los Alto City Council unanimously approved to join Town of Los Altos Hills and Midpeninsula Regional Space District(MROSD) to file an amicus brief to support Bay Area for Clean Environment's (BACE's) lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant(Lehigh). We are long term residents living in this area, through the years Lehigh continuously violating the regulations, now it is the time to stop. We would appreciate if you can represent us for our best interest to vote. Please follow Los Altos Hills and MROSD to support filing an amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant(Lehigh). Thanks. Joanne Karen B. Guerin From: donstaub@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 10:06 AM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Tonight's City Council Meeting --9/17 Dear Cupertino City Council Members, Please fulfill your obligation to the citizens of Cupertino and join Los Altos and the Mid-peninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) in the filing of an amicus brief to support Bay Area for Clean Environment's (BACE's) lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant. Certainly, other neighboring cities will also join this action -- don't leave Cupertino out! I am sure you have already seen all the backup documents supporting this action. If not, let me know and I will be glad to send them. Thank you, Don Staub i LG 9- /7- l3 �7` -��-- Karen B. Guerin From: Marylin McCarthy [m4 @earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:'21 AM To: Orrin Mahoney Subject: Amicus Brief Agenda Item Honorable Mayor Mahoney. As you know, the Los Altos City Council unanimously approved to join the Town of Los Altos Hills and the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) to file an amicus brief to support Bay Area for Clean Environment's (BACE's) lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant (Lehigh) on September 10, 2013. Tonight at the September 17th city council meeting I hope that the council makes a similar decision. Council members in the past few years have been exposed to not only the pollution generated by the Lehigh facility but to the increasing amount of data that supports stricter emissions standards for the Leigh plant operations coming from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and local residents, especially home town organizations like RACE. In fact the BAAQMD has now implemented Regulation 9, Rule 13 that went into effect on September 9, 2013. This regulation provides c1E!aner air for our residents two years ahead of EPA's new rules. The reason is so obvious- the Lehigh facility is the only cement plant operating so close to millions of people. Maybe the Santa County Board of Supervisors and the Santa Clara County Planning office were remiss in past years for allowing so many people to build housing so close to the then Kaiser facility, yet we can not make the past better we can only strive to improve the future. I look to the Cupertino Council members to act to protect the residents of Cupertino and the surrounding communities. Please file an amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit. Please take the next step to helping make Cupertino not only a technological haven but also a safer place to live and raise children. Sincerely, Marylin McCarthy 10159 Cass Place Cupertino, CA 95014 M4(@earthlink.net Karen B. Guerin From: fei kao [feikao3 @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 12:40 PM To: Orrin Mahoney; Gilbert Wong; Barry Chang; Mark Santoro; Rod Sinks Subject: Please file an amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant(Lehigh) Dear City Council members, Few days ago, Los Alto City Council unanimously approved to join Town of Los Altos Hills and Midpeninsula Regional Space District(MROSD) to file an amicus brief to support Bay Area for Clean Environment's (BACE's) lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant(Lehigh). We are long term residents living in this area, through the years Lehigh continuously violating the regulations, now it is the time to stop. We would appreciate if you can represent us for our best interest to vote. Please follow Los Altos Hills and MROSD to support filing an amicus brief to support BACE's lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh Southwest Cement Plant(Lehigh). Thanks. Fei Yi Kao 1 Karen B. Guerin From: Barbara Kyser[bjkyser @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 1:1.4 PM To: City Council Subject: Amicus Brief I encourage the Mt. View City Council to join the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District and the Town of Los Altos and Los Altos Hills in filing an Amicus Brief to support Bay Area for Clean Environment's (BACE's) vested rights lawsuit against Santa Clara County and Lehigh. I live in Woodland Acres and quite close to the Lehigh plant and there is a constant stream of trucks going in and out of the plant. I do not want further expansion and know that Lehigh has been a significant polluter in our area. If they want to continue to operate so close to residents they need to be held accountable for any pollution they create and should shrink their operations, not expand them. The County Supervisor's decision was poor and should be overturned. Please consider those who live in Los Altos and join the Amicus Brief. Barbara Kyser 558 Deodara Drive Los Altos 650/960-0138 1 1 '— / '1— 1-3 z az, G�62_ Karen B. Guerin From: Adam Guernsey[aguernsey @hthjl.aw.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 8:4'AM To: Gilbert Wong Subject: FW: City Council Amicus Brief Attachments: Letter to Cupertino Mayor City Council 9-16-13 (00353916).pdf Dear Honorable Council Member Wong, I received an email last night that I may have attempted to email you at the incorrect email address. Attached to this email, please find a letter from Mark D. Harrison which requires the City Council's immediate attention. Regards, Adam Guernsey From: Adam Guernsey Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 10:11 PM To: 'orrinmahoney @comcast.net' Cc: 'gilbertwong @gmail.com'; 'cupertinomark @gmail.com'; 'rodsinks @gmail.com'; 'barry4cupertino @gmail.com'; 'carolk @cupertino.org' Subject: City Council Amicus Brief Dear Honorable Mayor Mahoney and Honorable City Council Members, Attached to this email please find a letter from Mark D. Harrison which requires the Council's immediate attention. Best Regards, ADAM K.GUERNSEY,ASSOCIATE HARRISON TEMBLADOR HUNGERFORD&JOHNSON MINING LAND USE NATURAL RESOURCES g80 9TH STREET,SUITE 1400 SACRAMENTO.CA 95814 MAIN.916.382.4377 •DIRECT.916228.4221 •FAX:915.382 4380 AG UERNSEY(6HTHJLAW.COM • WWW.HTHJLAW.COM CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail transmission,and any documents,files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally pnwleged If you are nut the intended recipient,or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any disclosure copying,distribution or use of any of the information coolained in or attached to this transmission Is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error.please immediately notify us by reply e-mad.by forwarding inns e-mail back to the sender or by telephone at 916.228.4221 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading o saving in any manner As required by U.S Treasury Regulations we advise you that any tax advice contained in this communication(including any attachments)is not intended to be used.and cannot be used.for the purpose of avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code